couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0
Date Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:29:35 GMT
In these recent cases all I see is that a few minutes of discussion
would have saved a lot of noise. We should be collaborating closely at
the tail end of a release.

In general, though, I thought we already were review before commit,
which is why patches go to JIRA or we make branches in git. It's just
me that thinks this?


On 23 March 2012 13:27, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> Review after commit, by default, is fine. It should be review before commit on a hot
release branch, and the active release manager should be consulted in all instances. These
changes have wasted a significant amount of my time, and pushed this release back by half
a week.
> In fairness, this is not written down anywhere, and Randal was acting in good faith,
so I do not blame him for these issues. I will be documenting some of this stuff, for clarification
and future reference, after the release.
> Let's leave it at that, and revisit best practices later.
> On 23 Mar 2012, at 13:17, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:21, Robert Newson <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> or directory
>>>>>> [error] [<0.87.0>] Error opening file
>>>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_users.couch.compact:
>>>>>> such file or directory
>>>>>> [error] [<0.100.0>] Error opening file
>>>>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_replicator.couch: no
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> B.
>>>>>> On 21 March 2012 21:44, Randall Leeds <>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:47, Noah Slater <>
>>>>>>>> This is great! Browser tests too, please! Thanks!
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Randall Leeds <>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:21, Noah Slater <>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you added the appropriate entries in NEWS and
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> Green light from me.
>>>>>>> I'm online for several hours if you need me.

View raw message