couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 2.0 Status
Date Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:35:16 GMT
asking from a user perspective: would it be possible to configure the uuid
and the secret for signing cookies for all nodes with nmo (
https://github.com/apache/couchdb-nmo) or anything else? Not sure if this
would raise security issues ...

If yes - we should include it in the docs.

On 17 December 2015 at 00:29, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
wrote:

>
> So 1) the mango thing is already fixed, 2) I’ve bumped rebar.config to
> point to the fix for couch_replicator and 3) this "view-based filtered
> replication" isn’t even a thing, the _changes_ field can take
> ?filter=_view, this does work in 2.0.
>
> That leaves remembering to set uuid consistently, we’ll need to cover that
> in docs. We have the same issue with the secret value used to sign cookies,
> it’s important that all nodes of a cluster have the same value (though
> unlike uuid it has to be secret and ~impossible to guess).
>
> B.
>
>
> > On 14 Dec 2015, at 20:54, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> >> On 12 Dec 2015, at 18:02, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Cloudant has recently deployed a CouchDB 2.0-based build into an
> internal environment (it gets real usage but is not yet on our public
> clusters) and we’ve found it to be pretty solid. I note a few things that
> we saw (they might not all apply to 2.0, we extend and modify the code a
> little);
> >
> > this is outstanding news, thank you! \o/ :)
> >
> >
> >> 1. now that we’re clustered, it’s important to remember to set
> [couchdb] uuid to the same value for each node a cluster (and for different
> clusters to have different values). At Cloudant all clusters have names, so
> we just use that (if you’re familiar with our offering, values like
> "meritage", "moonshine", "jenever").
> >>
> >> 2. View-based filtered replication seems not to work, probably a simple
> oversight in the chttpd layer.
> >>
> >> 3. Mango was missing the "fields" feature but this has now been ported.
> >>
> >> 4. It’s important to have the latest version of couch_replicator as the
> "rescan" fix is a significant performance difference.
> >>
> >> We’ll be working on patches for everything we’ve found and continue to
> find since we now work directly against the ASF branches, but hopefully
> this gives us all some confidence that the 2.0 codebase is in decent shape.
> >
> > Good finds! Is there an ETA on any of these, or tickets that we can
> follow?
> >
> >
> >> I share your disappointment at the js test suite progress, it’s been
> over a month and it’s not happened. Cloudant has a different test suite (in
> Python) that has given us the confidence to proceed to production
> deployment. With my ASF hat on we can’t consider that a factor in the
> couchdb release process but it’s comfort nonetheless.
> >
> > That is definitely good to know, and I share your comfort. Nonetheless,
> at least https://github.com/apache/couchdb-chttpd/pull/98 shows that
> there are still some things are in 1.x that haven’t made it over to any
> other test suite but the JS one yet and are missing from 2.x, I want to
> keep this list as short as possible.
> >
> >
> >> If we investigate the above issues, fix what is broken, I think we can
> make a beta build even without the test suite. I hope community engagement
> will be sufficient to move forward to the real 2.0 release. This has been a
> long (looooonnnnnggg) time in the making and I personally very much want to
> look back on the 2.0 milestone.
> >
> >
> > I’m on board with this. I’d even be okay with adding the ones you
> mention on the CouchDB JIRA as blocking* and then call the initial release
> an “alpha”, and point to the JIRA blocking list as “known issues”.
> Subsequent releases can be called “beta” as soon as the blocking list is
> empty (so using “beta” in the traditional no-known-bugs meaning).
> >
> > *
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2876?jql=project%20%3D%20COUCHDB%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
> >
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > Also, who’s volunteering for release master? :)
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >>> On 12 Dec 2015, at 14:40, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey all,
> >>>
> >>> where are we on 2.0?
> >>>
> >>> Who is working on the 2.0 blockers listed on
> http://s.apache.org/couchdb-2.0?
> >>>
> >>> * * *
> >>>
> >>> I said I wanted the JS test suite to get fully passing before we get a
> beta out, but given the meagre response (thanks all who did help!), it
> appears foolish to stand firm on this.
> >>>
> >>> We should keep working on this, but it could be handled during the
> beta period under “known issues”. See
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb-chttpd/pull/98 for an example of just
> two tiny things we accidentally dropped between 1.x and 2.x, and I fear
> there are a lot more hidden in the 45 JS tests that we don’t run yet.
> Especially our replicator tests are part of the skipped tests and that
> worries me.
> >>>
> >>> * * *
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, we should try to get a beta out before the holidays.
> What is missing before we would feel comfortable getting a beta release out?
> >>>
> >>> Who can help get us over the hump?
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>> Jan
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
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