couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Summary of IRC Meeting in #couchdb-meeting
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:41:38 GMT
Hi,

Joan, thanks for moderating the meeting. Very interesting things have been
discussed. I am really looking forward to test the merged windsor-merge
(where does that name come from btw :) ) into master.

Thanks to everybody for this tremendous work!

Cheers

Andy



On 27 August 2014 22:06, ASF IRC Bot <asfbot@urd.zones.apache.org> wrote:

> Summary of IRC Meeting in #couchdb-meeting at Wed Aug 27 19:13:22 2014:
>
> Attendees: Wohali, davisp, Kxepal, robertkowalski, chewbranca, strmpnk,
> rnewson
>
> - Preface
> - merge
> - 1.6.1
>   - Action: We should define a backup release engineer approach for when
> the RE becomes unavailable during a release cycle
> - new committers
> - CouchDB 2.0 scope
>   - Action: robertkowalski to get a branch up with the application/json
> type change for testing
>   - Info: couchdb 2.0 to be the result of merges of code from bigcouch and
> rcouch's view changes, other scope to be pushed down the road
>   - Info: above is a prediction, not a decision
> - fauxton
> - http refactor (couchdb 3.0 timeframe)
>   - Action: chewbranca to write something up that compares pros/cons of
> each and get an email out for a vote eventually
>
>
> IRC log follows:
>
> ## Preface ##
> ## merge ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:13:30 2014] <Wohali>: take it away rnewson
> [Wed Aug 27 19:13:35 2014] <rnewson>: hi
> [Wed Aug 27 19:13:59 2014] <rnewson>: windsor-merge is essentially
> complete, davisp and I will be merging that work to the master branches of
> all affected repositories in the next day or two.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:14:52 2014] <strmpnk>: rnewson: Is there anything specific
> you'd like to get eyes on or just general testing of the latest merge?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:15:07 2014] <rnewson>: after the merge to master it's all
> about testing.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:15:29 2014] <rnewson>: the first post-merge work will be
> etap->eunit, I think.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:16:28 2014] <Wohali>: indeed
> [Wed Aug 27 19:16:32 2014] <Wohali>: chewbranca: are you here?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:18:54 2014] <Wohali>: ok
> [Wed Aug 27 19:18:56 2014] <Wohali>: guess that's it
> ## 1.6.1 ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:19:10 2014] <Wohali>: I think dch is away
> [Wed Aug 27 19:19:17 2014] <Wohali>: but it looks like rc4 is a good one
> so far
> [Wed Aug 27 19:19:35 2014] <Wohali>: last time, we had the RE vanish in th
> emiddle of a release as well an it blocked.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:19:41 2014] <Wohali>: i think we should come up with a
> backup RE approach in case this happens again
> [Wed Aug 27 19:19:43 2014] <rnewson>: crap, I meant to vote on that. :D
> [Wed Aug 27 19:21:40 2014] <Wohali>: rofl
> [Wed Aug 27 19:21:49 2014] <Wohali>: in any case, we are waiting until dch
> gets back at this point.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:21:54 2014] <Wohali>: hopefuly no one is in too much pain.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:22:10 2014] <Wohali>: #action We should define a backup
> release engineer approach for when the RE becomes unavailable during a
> release cycle
> [Wed Aug 27 19:22:20 2014] <Wohali>: anything else on 1.6.1?
> ## new committers ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:23:15 2014] <Wohali>: going to skip this one for now
> ## CouchDB 2.0 scope ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:23:57 2014] <Wohali>: i wanted to briefly touch on this -
> it looks like on the ML we are settling down to 2.0 being the result of
> this merge, hopefully with view sequence/changes as well (see branch being
> worked by Benjamin Bastian and Benoit Chesneau)
> [Wed Aug 27 19:24:06 2014] <Wohali>: and that larger changes around API,
> etc. are now being looked at for 3.0
> [Wed Aug 27 19:24:19 2014] <rnewson>: sounds about right
> [Wed Aug 27 19:24:55 2014] <Wohali>: #info couchdb 2.0 to be the result of
> merges of code from bigcouch and rcouch's view changes, other scope to be
> pushed down the road
> [Wed Aug 27 19:25:08 2014] <rnewson>: err
> [Wed Aug 27 19:25:18 2014] <Wohali>: did i get that wrong?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:25:41 2014] <rnewson>: we can say that's what we believe,
> there's not enough people in here to call it a decision
> [Wed Aug 27 19:25:58 2014] <Wohali>: right
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:04 2014] <Wohali>: #info above is a prediction, not a
> decision
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:04 2014] <robertkowalski>: i have a small breaking
> change where i change a response type - but i agree to it for the large api
> changes mentioned on the ML
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:05 2014] <rnewson>: it's about the same outcome, anyone
> wanting 2.0 to be anything *else* will have to turn up to a meeting.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:18 2014] <Wohali>: robertkowalski: i know th eone of
> which you speak, yes let's get that into testing
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:26 2014] <rnewson>: which one?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:43 2014] <Wohali>: that's the application/json thing iirc
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:47 2014] <robertkowalski>: that application/json thingy
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:48 2014] <rnewson>: ah, yeah
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:48 2014] <robertkowalski>: yes!
> [Wed Aug 27 19:26:58 2014] <Wohali>: which no one can remmeber what it
> actually breaks
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:01 2014] <rnewson>: right
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:08 2014] <Wohali>: #actoin robertkowalski to get a
> branch up with the application/json type change for testing
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:13 2014] <Wohali>: #action robertkowalski to get a
> branch up with the application/json type change for testing
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:17 2014] <Wohali>: I can also repeat that post-2.0
> cloudant will contribute back the query functionality, look for that in a
> 2.1-ish timeframe
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:26 2014] <Wohali>: assuming the ASF & PMC agree to
> accept it
> [Wed Aug 27 19:27:39 2014] <robertkowalski>: :D
> [Wed Aug 27 19:28:01 2014] <Wohali>: ok onto fauxton
> ## fauxton ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:28:40 2014] <Wohali>: there's been a lot of work here
> recently. garren is currently working to bring the code over from what
> deathbear and jennmoneydollars were building out
> [Wed Aug 27 19:28:54 2014] <robertkowalski>: yes! garren is currently
> slicing the huge branch from the secondary indexes into smaller pieces
> [Wed Aug 27 19:28:56 2014] <Wohali>: unfortunately that branch fell far
> behind master so the work is painful, he is having to piecemeal it and it
> doesn't seem he can keep attribution
> [Wed Aug 27 19:29:11 2014] <Wohali>: this is unfortunate but he will i'm
> sure annotate this in commit comments
> [Wed Aug 27 19:29:24 2014] <Wohali>: some good stuff in there and it looks
> really smashing
> [Wed Aug 27 19:29:41 2014] <Wohali>: also thanks to sean barclay who has
> been driving the design process with compositions and wireframes.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:29:53 2014] <Wohali>: fauxtoneers, anything more?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:30:07 2014] <robertkowalski>: no
> [Wed Aug 27 19:30:23 2014] <robertkowalski>: ah wait!
> [Wed Aug 27 19:30:38 2014] <Wohali>: ...go on :)
> [Wed Aug 27 19:31:12 2014] <robertkowalski>: Kxepal is filing issues (we
> decided last meeting) and he is doing great work
> [Wed Aug 27 19:31:19 2014] <Kxepal>: >_>
> [Wed Aug 27 19:31:25 2014] <robertkowalski>: so we are working on the
> action from our last meeting
> [Wed Aug 27 19:31:37 2014] <Wohali>: yay!
> [Wed Aug 27 19:32:04 2014] <robertkowalski>: he also fixes them, which is
> really great
> [Wed Aug 27 19:32:24 2014] <robertkowalski>: ok, i think that it is
> [Wed Aug 27 19:33:00 2014] <Wohali>: ok great
> ## http refactor (couchdb 3.0 timeframe) ##
> [Wed Aug 27 19:34:04 2014] <Wohali>: strmpnk has something
> [Wed Aug 27 19:34:39 2014] <strmpnk>: I know Russell has been considering
> which HTTP server to move forward with.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:34:54 2014] <strmpnk>: Right now there are some prototypes
> which consider webmachine and cowboy.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:35:30 2014] <strmpnk>: There were questions of cowboy not
> supporting old releases but it seems like we can push this off till 3.0 is
> something planned.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:35:40 2014] <strmpnk>: Beyond that it's work on internal
> API placement.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:35:56 2014] <Wohali>: strmpnk: chewbranca mentioned
> something to me that he feels a hybrid approach would be best, and that he
> spoke to basho guys who admitted that they have an internal fork or
> building a webmachine-style state machine on top of cowbow.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:35:58 2014] <strmpnk>: An idea was put forward to mirror
> fabric-like calls in the couch module.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:36:16 2014] <Wohali>: but i am getting the sense there is
> consensus on cowboy at the http level since it has the most going for it.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:37:14 2014] <strmpnk>: Wohali: Yes. Cowboy supports the
> state machine REST stuff so it might be a good choice if we can figure out
> Erlang version support issues for 3.0.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:38:20 2014] <strmpnk>: So in the meantime, there can be
> some planning on how the single-node API can be cleaned up so we can
> instantiate the code with a specific backend.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:38:42 2014] <strmpnk>: For now the consensus is that the
> clustered and single node APIs are separated but this could change...
> [Wed Aug 27 19:39:07 2014] <Kxepal>: more interesting question: who
> already supports spdy/http2.0 or will get it in nearest future?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:39:09 2014] <strmpnk>: The primary win is unified code.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:39:45 2014] <chewbranca>: for cowboy vs webmachine, I think
> it's not a great comparison, I think webmachine is the level of abstraction
> that we want and that cowboy is the server with the best long term
> potential and also the one that currently supports all the web technologies
> [Wed Aug 27 19:40:12 2014] <chewbranca>: I think we should V1 run with
> webmachine, and then rip out mochiweb from webmachine and swap in cowboy
> once we get off of r14
> [Wed Aug 27 19:41:27 2014] <chewbranca>: cowboy does offer some of the
> restful resource declaration stuff, but it's apparently not as
> comprehensive and also doesn't support the dispatch flow chart
> [Wed Aug 27 19:43:52 2014] <Wohali>: I think the goal was to get off of
> r14 by 3.0
> [Wed Aug 27 19:43:58 2014] <Wohali>: in which case we can be more
> aggressive about what we use
> [Wed Aug 27 19:44:06 2014] <chewbranca>: I want to write something up at
> some point that compares pros and cons of each and get an email out for a
> vote
> [Wed Aug 27 19:44:08 2014] <Wohali>: i'd also not like to have to change
> the http layer twice in as many versions :)
> [Wed Aug 27 19:44:11 2014] <Wohali>: sounds good.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:44:19 2014] <rnewson>: I'm going to dispute that as a
> "goal" every time it comes up.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:44:27 2014] <Wohali>: #action chewbranca to write something
> up that compares pros/cons of each and get an email out for a vote
> eventually
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:14 2014] <rnewson>: no.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:20 2014] <Wohali>: ok
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:21 2014] <chewbranca>: I do think this is the
> opportunity to restructure the http api
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:24 2014] <Wohali>: any other points?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:42 2014] <rnewson>: "get off of r14" is not a goal. "no
> longer expend effort to support r14" is.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:45:51 2014] <rnewson>: but it's currently no effort.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:22 2014] <Wohali>: if we depend on cowboy we won't be
> able to support r14.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:24 2014] <Wohali>: then fine.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:35 2014] <Wohali>: I think the goal was to not have to
> support r14 by 3.0
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:36 2014] <Wohali>: better?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:42 2014] <rnewson>: what does cowboy require and why?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:47 2014] <davisp>: R16 soonish
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:52 2014] <rnewson>: no, that's the same goal restated
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:53 2014] <Wohali>: attempts to patch cowboy to support
> r14 have been closed
> [Wed Aug 27 19:46:59 2014] <Wohali>: they won't accept the PR
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:05 2014] <rnewson>: it is not a "goal" to drop support
> for working versions of erlang.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:05 2014] <Wohali>: davisp tried once, I think...i forget
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:09 2014] <davisp>: I had a PR to ranch awhile ago that
> said they were going to drop R15 and older "soon"
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:14 2014] <Wohali>: ^^
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:37 2014] <davisp>: I expressed my trepidation depending
> on a project that makes these sorts of decisions forcefully
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:43 2014] <davisp>: especially given the PR itself was
> trivial
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:45 2014] <rnewson>: right
> [Wed Aug 27 19:47:55 2014] <rnewson>: I share that trepidation.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:04 2014] <Wohali>: got it.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:08 2014] <rnewson>: cowboy can trivially work with r14
> but refuse?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:13 2014] <Wohali>: we're not going to resolve this here
> but this is somethign for the ML
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:18 2014] <rnewson>: sure.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:22 2014] <Wohali>: fwiw those horrible other people (cb)
> built their own thing
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:26 2014] <davisp>: rnewson: it was ranch that wasn't
> backwards compatible which is a core dep of cowboy
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:27 2014] <davisp>: same authors
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:28 2014] <Wohali>: that is alway san option but ugh
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:35 2014] <davisp>: we could write a NIF!
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:47 2014] <rnewson>: If there is compelling reasons to
> adopt tech that isn't r14 compatible, we can discuss adopting it and
> accepting the trade-off
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:48 2014] <Wohali>: and it means we have to worry about
> websockets, spdy, etc. all of which are in cowboy....pros/cons that russell
> is going to write up should drive the decision making process.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:48:58 2014] <rnewson>: but I, at least, oppose dropping
> support without sufficient reason
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:03 2014] <chewbranca>: this is another reason I'm
> suggesting run with webmachine, then rip out mochiweb support from
> webmachine and replace it with cowboy down the road
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:08 2014] <davisp>: Link to that  ranch PR:
> https://github.com/ninenines/ranch/pull/76
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:17 2014] <rnewson>: chewbranca: that's interesting.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:24 2014] <chewbranca>: we could do a 3.0 release with
> the new http api, but still support r14
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:40 2014] <rnewson>: we should also wonder if adopting
> any new framework is warranted.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:40 2014] <davisp>: That sounds reasonable to me
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:58 2014] <Wohali>: ok
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:59 2014] <rnewson>: it *feels* like our http layer is
> simply crufty. is mochiweb actually a problem?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:49:59 2014] <chewbranca>: I've looked into it a bit and it
> doesn't look overly complex to replace mochiweb with cowboy, and apparently
> basho already has an internal branch that does that
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:08 2014] <chewbranca>: I'm trying to get them to push
> that out so we can run with
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:17 2014] <Wohali>: that'd be swell
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:20 2014] <rnewson>: rather, is switching to not-mochiweb
> going to improve things mostly by causing us to do the rewrite?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:27 2014] <chewbranca>: rnewson: mochiweb is a problem in
> that it's significantly behind cowboy in terms of raw technology
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:29 2014] <davisp>: rnewson: I've heard rumblings that
> cowboy is faster, but haven't done the research personally
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:39 2014] <rnewson>: 'raw technology'?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:55 2014] <davisp>: also, I really don't give a hoot if
> we use either if we switch to webmachine
> [Wed Aug 27 19:50:58 2014] <chewbranca>: websockets, server sent events,
> spdy, etc
> [Wed Aug 27 19:51:00 2014] <davisp>: rnewson: its the uncooked kind
> [Wed Aug 27 19:51:03 2014] <strmpnk>: rnewson: options to use spdy and
> possibly http 2.0. &c.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:51:09 2014] <rnewson>: hm, ok.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:51:17 2014] <rnewson>: the http 2.0 crap hasn't died down
> then.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:51:19 2014] <strmpnk>: chewbranca: I think we already
> support server sent events but I guess it could make it easier?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:52:07 2014] <chewbranca>: so there's two things with the
> http layer IMO, 1) restructure the API, 2) update the http server
> [Wed Aug 27 19:52:10 2014] <strmpnk>: rnewson: I'm not sure how couch will
> leverage the standard yet but it could prove useful for those needing the
> channel support to avoid head of line blocking.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:52:11 2014] <chewbranca>: we can do those in isolation
> [Wed Aug 27 19:52:27 2014] <chewbranca>: and hey, maybe by the time we get
> to 2) mochiweb will support all the things and we can skip it
> [Wed Aug 27 19:52:53 2014] <chewbranca>: but I think 1) is a good thing to
> do, and refactoring the http stack is a good time to do it
> [Wed Aug 27 19:53:39 2014] <rnewson>: I want a swear jar every time
> someone says "refactor" for a change that alters behavior.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:12 2014] <strmpnk>: My concern there is that altering
> the API will make this much harder to find consensus on.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:13 2014] <rnewson>: the case for switching from mochiweb
> is clear, at least. next topic?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:15 2014] <chewbranca>: my point above is not that
> they're the same thing, but rather than it's an opportune time
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:28 2014] <strmpnk>: Iterating on a cleaner codebase will
> make that cheaper, AFTER the unification.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:35 2014] <chewbranca>: I'm suggesting that changing the
> http api behavior is simplest to do while doing an http refactor
> [Wed Aug 27 19:54:51 2014] <rnewson>: that's another dollar for me...
> [Wed Aug 27 19:55:08 2014] <chewbranca>: ...
> [Wed Aug 27 19:55:28 2014] <Wohali>: dollar?
> [Wed Aug 27 19:55:38 2014] <Wohali>: ah right
> [Wed Aug 27 19:56:00 2014] <Wohali>: rnewson's a stickler about the use of
> the term refactor meaning absolutely no behaviour change at all
> [Wed Aug 27 19:56:15 2014] <chewbranca>: which is why I've chosen my
> wording carefully
> [Wed Aug 27 19:56:30 2014] <rnewson>: that's the only meaning of
> "refactor". The term was coinced specifically and solely to mean that, as
> distinct from any other word. :)
> [Wed Aug 27 19:56:31 2014] <Wohali>: i.e., a purely structural change with
> no visible change outside of whatever box you are defining as the endpoints
> of the system
> [Wed Aug 27 19:56:45 2014] <rnewson>: chewbranca is saying it's both an
> api change *and* a refactor.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:57:23 2014] <rnewson>: we'll leave it there, since the sum
> is not a refactor, and neither of us would call it the net result that.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:58:08 2014] <chewbranca>: sure, I'll agree with you there,
> consolidating down to one API would strictly be a refactor, and everything
> past that would be outside the scope of a refactor
> [Wed Aug 27 19:59:03 2014] <Wohali>: ok thanks.
> [Wed Aug 27 19:59:40 2014] <rnewson>: chewbranca: even that wouldn't be
> because there are discrepancies between chttpd and couch_httpd behavior :(
> [Wed Aug 27 19:59:51 2014] <chewbranca>: rnewson: ahhh true
> [Wed Aug 27 20:00:30 2014] <robertkowalski>: rnewson: is there another
> direction you would prefer?
> [Wed Aug 27 20:01:18 2014] <robertkowalski>: and you have currently in mind
> [Wed Aug 27 20:03:52 2014] <rnewson>: no, I just want it clear what our
> options are and what they mean.
> [Wed Aug 27 20:03:56 2014] <rnewson>: and what they aren't.
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:10 2014] <Wohali>: ok cool we are all in agreement that
> the next step is to write that up
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:14 2014] <robertkowalski>: ok, i mean i have no clue on
> erlang, but maybe we need more time for a decision
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:17 2014] <Wohali>: and russell's volunteered, thank you
> russell!
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:23 2014] <Wohali>: robertkowalski: no decision is being
> reached today
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:26 2014] <Wohali>: this is just lively chat :)
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:29 2014] <rnewson>: I don't see 2.0 being anything more
> than the merge
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:30 2014] <Wohali>: anyway we are over our time for this
> meeting
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:32 2014] <rnewson>: and maybe view changes
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:42 2014] <Wohali>: +1 and i think everyone's in line
> there
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:49 2014] <rnewson>: that will introduce two http layers
> that are not identical in behavior
> [Wed Aug 27 20:04:54 2014] <rnewson>: then in 3.0 we fix that
> [Wed Aug 27 20:05:57 2014] <Wohali>: ok i think we're don ehere.
> [Wed Aug 27 20:06:03 2014] <Wohali>: thank you all for coming to the
> meeting!
> [Wed Aug 27 20:06:07 2014] <Wohali>: ASFBot: meeting end
>
>
> Meeting ended at Wed Aug 27 20:06:07 2014
>



-- 
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588

 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message