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 63BD19B3A for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43152 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2012 13:29:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 43110 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2012 13:29:02 -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 43101 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2012 13:29:02 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:29:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.180] (HELO mail-yx0-f180.google.com) (209.85.213.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:28:54 +0000 Received: by yenl4 with SMTP id l4so3373592yen.11 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=QmTLEFHeYTnfZ/dQ2VQ/ahlipyoZf/g7uXvdqtx683w=; b=E8UNTCDdHW92xWbbjfmLIhsMuAuqw7HoU09Rd6Ldpvl3VZsOyu0ZgXe8QzkuxsQnIG e7Y5eHuX2jGyaO/E94POjdbOlpBwPzP5dpl7JNMAqJhb/iDw0fES4NoniBuDTj2QLFDq vW9t/2eNEIlmoW6WObY8AyKewZcJiOfvGRrymR44+JLyDxEsOpKvFjhgUOzVbTUTKIwW oDnenc4/YY4wxLqXlSuBoFn5H5VRr8iozHCyqTA9lwBU1KDFUUoq2IG9wdhWzWqBeF3I BrtkbSIUk8T/PLe7/hfZCJZOW6Fqj07RNxdFfZ0D9ZJJ9TkapoTU7O13Vswh0rEVT922 tbYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.130.72 with SMTP id oc8mr29279567pbb.115.1332509313466; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.217.225 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:28:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:28:33 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problems blocking 1.2.0 From: Randall Leeds To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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.