Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=GfZmIzZcB7/MhFo+P3L2Q/yH8OHHiuI9NzJIhZe7Sjnm/NCdxr0z9kwt3KiwHw2ziI
         Ut5Sygn9E7P0eXPtlT0T6kjR4er2Y/NMorKaO8D6dT5QEaiUlGVIqpCue10PubFBYaM+
         oXUcID2SWJcotTgq/tvVoYo9DOImae5Skdm/4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=1RcMuePO9JbPdTFcQvS8hfft3nL2w71BvR8L=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinUbnDSwLyju0Bf_muoXQAmdoJ5N0KaBOQB9Kdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=iXLeZUkK5sixdu0oY318ZGdZOnUHFpLw+HNyB@mail.gmail.com>
 <7256187B2BFC4ECC9C91EB6734520E57@paperplanes.de>
 <DFE1FFCE-6ADF-47B1-B9FB-4C7E4B82A17A@apache.org>
 <AANLkTinZTyiMAYcpdXMjm-gcuqtj3qYtdUqDLLDzqiMb@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin1=igoPicq2PmbLOdmPcK8gxVS=7Tw7qtiGzNd@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=3=GjUj1--oKa5r3YMJvn4adE232-9xJjL=Um7@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikOFmq=mDg5X3GffkwG+6hxnJr8XMb+YmpuuzPi@mail.gmail.com>
 <6EBC4801-765D-4452-8895-E5FBB4BC01FF@apache.org>
 <AANLkTikeoVBc6yFCgAHnjPgKBsL-SpfKVU8MvFawjSLZ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=1RcMuePO9JbPdTFcQvS8hfft3nL2w71BvR8L=@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:45:09 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinhU4eHY_dc7wwb8sCmL=J1-OHnSAgmRrLZbGRU@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> +1 trillion.

Does that mean the motion passes? I could see nay-votes having a hard
time coming back from down 1 trillion.

>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> w=
rote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>>>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's anothe=
r
>>>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>>>
>>>>> B.
>>>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>>>
>>>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>>>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>>>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>>>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>>>> data where it was failling.
>>>>
>>>> - benoit
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, s=
o in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. =
=A0Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>
>> For the record I'd really like to get 1.0.2 out there and just push
>> any new bugs into a 1.0.3 release. If no one objects in the next
>> couple hours I'll remake those tarballs and start this party over
>> tonight.
>>
>