couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round
Date Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:25:22 GMT
If the fix is simple enough, I would prefer to see it in. The effects sound
moderately serious, and this effects the most recent Erlang, not some
legacy shit.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:

> If the R15/64 bit fix is the only issue with round 2, then I vote with
> Jan to defer it to 1.2.1. If we're opening up round 3 for any reason,
> I'd like to see it go in.
>
> b.
>
> On 27 February 2012 19:09, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 23, 2012, at 18:09 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >
> >> I'm happy to give this a +1 if we put a warning about R15B on the
> download page.
> >
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=commit;h=b1af764brefers
> > to an issue that makes operation under R15B potentially dangerous. We
> haven't
> > seen a report about any issues, but the Erlang manual quote severe
> potential
> > issues:
> >
> >> These changes are essential to not crash the emulator or worse cause
> malfunction. Without them a driver may return garbage in the high 32 bits
> to the emulator causing it to build a huge result from random bytes either
> crashing on memory allocation or succeeding with a random result from the
> driver call.
> >
> > and
> >
> >> The argument type change is from signed to unsigned which may cause
> problems for e.g. loop termination conditions or error conditions if you
> just change the types all over the place.
> >
> >   — http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erl_driver.html#rewrites_for_64_bits
> >
> >
> > The fix is simple enough (see the link above), but this makes me not feel
> > comfortable recommending this release for operation on R15B.
> >
> > I'd be fine with releasing 1.2.0 as is* and make it clear in the release
> > notes that R15B support isn't there yet and ship a 1.2.1 soonish with the
> > fix.
> >
> > * but if we are holding 1.2.0 for any of the other issues we are
> discussing,
> > I'd say we include this one.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message