From dev-return-21642-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Sat Mar 24 17:38:16 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 8D6809337 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78780 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2012 17:38:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 78736 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2012 17:38:16 -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 78727 invoked by uid 99); 24 Mar 2012 17:38:16 -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 17:38:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SINGLE_HEADER_2K,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nslater@tumbolia.org designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.180] (HELO mail-lb0-f180.google.com) (209.85.217.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:38:07 +0000 Received: by lbon10 with SMTP id n10so4108429lbo.11 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tumbolia.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YRLdRLrvYfxu17S9CgnwNJ9a6dwcU+c9nVzm7xkXsyE=; b=NYuq+k76xgTycJ1ZejC8u2pGHvl6w2wTFd/zvwu3HNL5SeZ8L0kUQN8dnj6PUz7xBE CHhuOAaOfRg1bPqG+gbqktYAa5uUWWYJ/n0L+qWRvOOHbxW36HmQ4pE8vAohLNw68g8K QVvBkdB5N8RD5leoOfnOTFOWM6SJ3N04geHEM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=YRLdRLrvYfxu17S9CgnwNJ9a6dwcU+c9nVzm7xkXsyE=; b=CwEZbrMsgFsaJ9ybQm2Y4Dum47fHcN7FQGLfvgx92dQU3GugmBV5aDFdkiEH8cHZhm 6JVaB9XMCtf83NmC+UAh/LxLgE290NPtcMZl3Ek5uvyfsJTCV3TXglekHIHtD8phsXoX ka6OhgAH+VGuOxSEJfR2zcDT1mf8Jx0+1fRSjwHhHgG23wfhD4K8kf2QEmFTkfB1PbuE sW+y6LI+7lDLmQ0uFbHWl6dHD+3C70BPyUMcNkifuz7K55jctNRaqCoYTTkbE4MB+Cvr +sRTxwwx86MZJpei2hJXZwDcKkcoIS1ybPy/3PdC5lLMJPVXPupN8yEB8ko6+vvzTI8P yBtw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.26.5 with SMTP id h5mr670982lbg.107.1332610666963; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.128.33 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [178.250.115.206] In-Reply-To: <763EC1C4-0642-4D69-ADF4-BFB21E9FA9FA@apache.org> References: <763EC1C4-0642-4D69-ADF4-BFB21E9FA9FA@apache.org> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:37:46 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0 From: Noah Slater To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d4386da2e304bc00994b X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+/+wIv9Mf5M9Q58A7VV/qcmKOorSDndDj86PsUQvrdzIdcsCBz99wyZPe/3kdRSe81WsI X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec554d4386da2e304bc00994b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 >wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > >> 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 wrote: > >>>> > >> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=1d13adcdcc9e31b80c8c2c4d84bddbe8452e20ec > >>>> > >>>> On 23 March 2012 14:04, Noah Slater wrote: > >>>>> \o/ > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Robert Newson > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Working on it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Robert Newson > > >>>>>> 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 > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 06:15, 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). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> s/we/I/, and that's the point of debug. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > > --bcaec554d4386da2e304bc00994b--