couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:17:09 GMT
Finally, the review-after-commit approach bothers me, especially at
crunch times like this. Can we get a chance to preview and discuss
changes while we're trying to push out a release please?

B.

On 23 March 2012 13:15, 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).
>
> 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?
>>
>> :)
>>
>> B.
>>
>> On 23 March 2012 13:12, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:21, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Release is still blocked as a clean startup now logs spurious errors
>>>> (1.1.x and 1.2.x);
>>>
>>> Filipe had asked me to include a log message there after my logging
>>> related commits. I've just committed a change that reduces this to
>>> debug level.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way to request that
>>> couch_file create the file if it doesn't exist, but just open it if it
>>> does. Instead, we require the overwrite option in order not to bail
>>> out. Otherwise, couch_replication_manager and couch_auth_cache could
>>> just add the create option when opening these system databases rather
>>> than detecting the error themselves and issuing couch_db:create after
>>> the failed couch_db:open. Is there a good reason why we don't honor
>>> the create option in the way I expected? The only reason I see is so
>>> that we can return an error to clients that POST/PUT to create a new
>>> database, but specifying the exclusive option to file:open actually
>>> addresses this.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the simple fix (to lower the log level) is committed to both branches.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apache CouchDB 1.1.2a3e2280b-git (LogLevel=info) is starting.
>>>> [error] [<0.87.0>] Error opening file
>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_users.couch: no such file
>>>> or directory
>>>> [error] [<0.87.0>] Error opening file
>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_users.couch.compact: no
>>>> such file or directory
>>>> [error] [<0.100.0>] Error opening file
>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_replicator.couch: no such
>>>> file or directory
>>>> [error] [<0.100.0>] Error opening file
>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_replicator.couch.compact:
>>>> no such file or directory
>>>> Apache CouchDB has started. Time to relax.
>>>> [info] [<0.31.0>] Apache CouchDB has started on http://127.0.0.1:5984/
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>>
>>>> On 21 March 2012 21:44, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:47, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> This is great! Browser tests too, please! Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:21, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Have you added the appropriate entries in NEWS and CHANGES?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just now. Running make check so I can give you the green
light.
>>>>>>> Would appreciate if anyone else would do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make check and futon tests pass here. Bob Dionne confirms the same. We
>>>>> found one tiny issue that remained with my changes and squashed it.
>>>>> Green light from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm online for several hours if you need me.

Mime
View raw message