Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86208 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2011 15:04:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2011 15:04:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 79693 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2011 15:04:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 79612 invoked by uid 500); 1 Feb 2011 15:04:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 79337 invoked by uid 99); 1 Feb 2011 15:04:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:04:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.213.52] (HELO mail-yw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.213.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:03:54 +0000 Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so3054623ywf.11 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:03:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.103.135 with SMTP id f7mr4122127yhg.91.1296572613365; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:03:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.111.19 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:03:33 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [125.236.236.206] In-Reply-To: <0BDAA08B-CDE3-4B3A-BD4C-F6D795DBB0F8@apache.org> References: <5D4BC772-F132-44DB-A8AF-A8B952BA0BA4@apache.org> <0BDAA08B-CDE3-4B3A-BD4C-F6D795DBB0F8@apache.org> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 04:03:33 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Supported versions? From: Dave Cottlehuber To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 21:50, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> IMHO, the general rule is supporting the current and previous release. = We have referred to that rule in the past. I'm not sure that is written dow= n anywhere though. I think this is a good policy either way. Overall I agree (is this a+0.7 ?) but people need to be given time to upgrade between versions. Some projects and commercial vendors provide support for a 6 month rolling window to enable this. From a sysadmin point of view this would be preferable. >>> We planned to have 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 come out at roughly the same time. A= s a result, I didn't bother backporting the required patches to the 0.11.x = line, effectively ending support. Now 1.0.2 is out and 1.1.0 isn't just yet= (I hope soon though) so we effectively broke the rule. I'll look into back= porting the required patches to 0.11.x so people can at least do manual fix= es. >>> >>> Does that sound like a sensible scenario? >> >> Sounds good to me (in particular the policy). > > Me too. Yup - solves the issue above neatly. A+ Dave