From dev-return-21639-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Sat Mar 24 11:11:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AECCB986A for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26624 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2012 11:11:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 26544 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2012 11:11:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 26530 invoked by uid 99); 24 Mar 2012 11:11:04 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:11:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=SINGLE_HEADER_2K,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.244.253.218] (HELO mail.traeumt.net) (80.244.253.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:10:56 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.193] (91-65-91-110-dynip.superkabel.de [91.65.91.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.traeumt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 009621405A for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:11:27 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Subject: Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0 From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:10:37 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <763EC1C4-0642-4D69-ADF4-BFB21E9FA9FA@apache.org> References: To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 --=20 >=20 > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Randall Leeds = wrote: >=20 >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 07:26, Robert Newson = wrote: >>> I'm revising that, benoit rightly suggests adding a = create_if_missing >>> option which would work the way randall thought create worked. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Should be unblocked now for 1.2 release. >>=20 >> -R >>=20 >>>=20 >>> B. >>>=20 >>> On 23 March 2012 14:08, Robert Newson wrote: >>>>=20 >> = http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcouchdb.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D= 1d13adcdcc9e31b80c8c2c4d84bddbe8452e20ec >>>>=20 >>>> On 23 March 2012 14:04, Noah Slater wrote: >>>>> \o/ >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Robert Newson = >> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Working on it. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 23 March 2012 13:54, Noah Slater wrote: >>>>>>> I am available tonight to try and ship 1.2.0. Will we be ready = by >> then? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Robert Newson = >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Randall, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> B. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On 23 March 2012 13:28, Randall Leeds >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:15, Robert Newson = >>=20 >>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> s/we/I/, and that's the point of debug. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> B. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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?" >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Is there a good reason you committed a fix to a release = branch >>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>> testing it? >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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_. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I'm asleep for a few hours. Happy to discuss process when I >> return. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>=20