Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: andywenk@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <A916828F-C228-4883-BC62-D7EE34BDB5CF@apache.org>
References: <CF16F2C3-23FF-4DAD-9D24-C86CC88CA540@apache.org>
 <C754C189-95E2-4BE2-8370-F38C29DB18F6@apache.org>
 <F0C4FB45-4AAD-4E68-A814-F7912F6BE032@apache.org>
 <A916828F-C228-4883-BC62-D7EE34BDB5CF@apache.org>
From: Andy Wenk <andywenk@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:35:16 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADA9kr9bAhP=Hc=Yk13u0h4jjBYqhASWdJE2J3WGXZtbapigpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2.0 Status
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf25abfe818052713e87b

--047d7bfcf25abfe818052713e87b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=E2=80=99ve bumped rebar.conf=
ig to
> point to the fix for couch_replicator and 3) this "view-based filtered
> replication" isn=E2=80=99t even a thing, the _changes_ field can take
> ?filter=3D_view, this does work in 2.0.
>
> That leaves remembering to set uuid consistently, we=E2=80=99ll need to c=
over that
> in docs. We have the same issue with the secret value used to sign cookie=
s,
> it=E2=80=99s important that all nodes of a cluster have the same value (t=
hough
> 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=E2=80=99ve found it to be pretty solid. I note a few thi=
ngs 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=E2=80=99re clustered, it=E2=80=99s important to remembe=
r to set
> [couchdb] uuid to the same value for each node a cluster (and for differe=
nt
> clusters to have different values). At Cloudant all clusters have names, =
so
> we just use that (if you=E2=80=99re familiar with our offering, values li=
ke
> "meritage", "moonshine", "jenever").
> >>
> >> 2. View-based filtered replication seems not to work, probably a simpl=
e
> oversight in the chttpd layer.
> >>
> >> 3. Mango was missing the "fields" feature but this has now been ported=
.
> >>
> >> 4. It=E2=80=99s important to have the latest version of couch_replicat=
or as the
> "rescan" fix is a significant performance difference.
> >>
> >> We=E2=80=99ll be working on patches for everything we=E2=80=99ve 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 shap=
e.
> >
> > 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=E2=80=99=
s been
> over a month and it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t consider that a factor in=
 the
> couchdb release process but it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t 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 engagemen=
t
> 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=E2=80=99m on board with this. I=E2=80=99d even be okay with adding th=
e ones you
> mention on the CouchDB JIRA as blocking* and then call the initial releas=
e
> an =E2=80=9Calpha=E2=80=9D, and point to the JIRA blocking list as =E2=80=
=9Cknown issues=E2=80=9D.
> Subsequent releases can be called =E2=80=9Cbeta=E2=80=9D as soon as the b=
locking list is
> empty (so using =E2=80=9Cbeta=E2=80=9D in the traditional no-known-bugs m=
eaning).
> >
> > *
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2876?jql=3Dproject%20%3D%20=
COUCHDB%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresol=
ved%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
> >
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > Also, who=E2=80=99s 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 =E2=80=9Cknown issues=E2=80=9D. 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=E2=80=99t 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 o=
ut?
> >>>
> >>> Who can help get us over the hump?
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>> Jan
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>


--=20
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

--047d7bfcf25abfe818052713e87b--