couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round
Date Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:19:49 GMT
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt <> wrote:

> It is interesting that 1.2.x won't hang.

There is no difference between the files you have on your branch, and the
files in the release tarball.

You can verify this yourself by following the steps here:

How may times have you tested this?

If you run "make check" on the branch 5 times, how many fail?

If you run "make check" from the tarball 5 times, how many file?

The question here is whether `make check` passing in R15B is a release
> requirement. In my vote I considered no, but I am happy to go with a
> community decision if it emerges. What is your take here?

Yes, this is a release blocker.

> In addition, this just shouldn't be a question, so we should investigate
> why this happens at all and address the issue, hence COUCHDB-1424. Any
> insight here would be appreciated as well.


> > In the command line tests, 2,7, 27, and 32 fail. but it differs from run
> to run.
> I assume you mean the JS tests. Again, this isn't supposed to work in
> 1.2.x. I'm happy to backport my changes from master to 1.2.x to make that
> work, but I refrained from that because I didn't want to bring too much
> change to a release branch. I'm happy to reconsider, but I don't think a
> release vote is a good place to discuss feature backports.

Jan, I am starting to think of our release vote rounds as release
candidates. In so much as, the activity they seem to kick-off seems to be
the sort of activity you hope to kick off with a regular release candidate.
Does that make sense? Within that context, I think it's fine to talk about
stuff like this. A release voting round is a prompt for people to get their
shit together.

> > On Chrome attachment_ranges fails and it hangs on replicator_db
> This one is an "explaining away", but I think it is warranted. Chrome is
> broken for attachment_ranges. I don't know if we reported this upstream
> (Robert N?), but this isn't a release blocker. For the replicator_db test,
> can you try running that in other browsers. I understand it is not the best
> of situation (hence the move to the cli test suite for master), but if you
> get this test to pass in at least one other browsers, this isn't a problem
> that holds 1.2.x.

We only support Firefox with the test suite. What am I missing?

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