couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0
Date Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:37:46 GMT
Just checking:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1445

This is still marked as unresolved.

Could someone close the ticket with any additional comment needed?

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 21:44 , Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Thank you.
>
> Seconded, thanks :)
>
> I ran the current 1.2.x branch through its paces and make distcheck checks
> out
> and I got the browser test suite to succeed in Firefox 11 in private
> browsing
> mode, albeit only on the second try. In the first attempt the replicator_db
> test failed and left the server in a state with admins configured, so all
> subsequent tests failed because of that. I believe this is a known issue
> that
> we should look into, but that is not blocking.
>
> Release away, Noah :)
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 07:26, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> I'm revising that, benoit rightly suggests adding a create_if_missing
> >>> option which would work the way randall thought create worked.
> >>
> >> With Benoit and Bob's help, we decided that log at debug was fine and
> >> I added a log for all uncaught exceptions that would return 500s to
> >> the client to be sure things don't go unnoticed by the admin in
> >> production.
> >>
> >> Should be unblocked now for 1.2 release.
> >>
> >> -R
> >>
> >>>
> >>> B.
> >>>
> >>> On 23 March 2012 14:08, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=1d13adcdcc9e31b80c8c2c4d84bddbe8452e20ec
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23 March 2012 14:04, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> >>>>> \o/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Working on it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 23 March 2012 13:54, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>> I am available tonight to try and ship 1.2.0. Will we be
ready by
> >> then?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Randall,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I could write a whole thing here but I'll cut it short
and simply
> >>>>>>>> apologise for any offense you have taken, it was not
intended. My
> >>>>>>>> 'chastisement' was intended humorously, but you were
essentially
> >>>>>>>> saying that your fix should have worked if only [create]
worked
> the
> >>>>>>>> way you imagined it did rather than how it does (which
implies you
> >>>>>>>> didn't try it).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll state again that logging at debug level is not
a great
> >> solution.
> >>>>>>>> We should log at error level *except* when auto-creating
the
> _users
> >>>>>>>> and _replicator dbs. It's a more involved fix, but I
think it's
> >> worth
> >>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 23 March 2012 13:28, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:15, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm also -1 on your revised solution. We go
to the trouble of
> >>>>>>>>>> carefully logging and formatting these errors
and then log them
> >> at a
> >>>>>>>>>> level that approximately no one ever runs at
(debug is far too
> >> noisy
> >>>>>>>>>> to use in production, for instance).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> s/we/I/, and that's the point of debug.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 23 March 2012 13:14, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> " Is there a good reason why we don't honor
> >>>>>>>>>>> the create option in the way I expected?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is there a good reason you committed a fix
to a release branch
> >>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>> testing it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are you referring to the different fix which I quickly
reverted
> >> on
> >>>>>>>>> 1.1.x? I did test that I didn't get your spurious
error report,
> >> but
> >>>>>>>>> tested more before committing to 1.2.x, caught my
oversight,
> >> reverted,
> >>>>>>>>> and offered the only solution which is non-invasive.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is there a good reason you'd prefer to chastise
me than to
> >> answer my
> >>>>>>>>> question? I woke up at 5:30am and checked my e-mail
because my
> >>>>>>>>> roommate happened to be in there already. I decided
I felt guilty
> >>>>>>>>> enough about a spurious log message and cared enough
about
> >> shipping
> >>>>>>>>> 1.2 to stay awake and investigate. I committed a
fix because I
> >> was
> >>>>>>>>> trying to be _helpful_.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm asleep for a few hours. Happy to discuss process
when I
> >> return.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
>
>

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