Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87759 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2010 02:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 7 Apr 2010 02:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 49012 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 02:01:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 48937 invoked by uid 500); 7 Apr 2010 02:01:20 -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 48929 invoked by uid 99); 7 Apr 2010 02:01:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:01:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.198 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.198] (HELO mail-yx0-f198.google.com) (209.85.210.198) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:01:12 +0000 Received: by yxe36 with SMTP id 36so311538yxe.13 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:00:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Cc/IBhdKzg6O89g76PCt6sozlxuZWriG1QtNyxhicC8=; b=RnjsFO6tmsWVafQBKYxnpgf9Gq16/SUi7ztPnb4o0oCAyQkKj65Dx44vw4x1oe+WPP +fwK8zKA/OslsXWu3C/09BcBKlV69NlTq2S4CwkIBT/qtiR2TvyKzoskCxodbtR8M2tp cEBt7dnZWA7x7X5XnqXK+SdVJLLIxhtySIT3Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=KrDkFa0NRiUm+YZFVzWL3MojJ6al50rFzH7oAIQVhQjCuSUklMXCvHhWzsE/Nv556j FIw/VY3BshscVWn5RYqVHSbeUJuLm759+rn7gqjcUi0DzVByU2FWjx09rHOQ47NLrx0I K5w1RkPboAqkO3xzpczf14iyK+VWVIHcfuSYw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.176.164 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.176.164 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:00:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <35450F4D-C1BD-4DBB-A78B-75CFEB5C9F16@apache.org> References: <35450F4D-C1BD-4DBB-A78B-75CFEB5C9F16@apache.org> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:00:51 +0100 Received: by 10.150.180.2 with SMTP id c2mr8577883ybf.314.1270605651972; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: 1.0 Code Management From: Randall Leeds To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd3bed689148004839bee0c X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd3bed689148004839bee0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I know I would like to throw some patches down in the coming weeks and while i'd love for some to hit 1.0 I recognize the need for extreme conservatism with respect to the 1.0 branch as adoption picks up for a stable release. +1 on cutting 1.0 from the 0.11.x branch. In my head 1.0 === 0.11.1. On Apr 6, 2010 5:33 PM, "Adam Kocoloski" wrote: On Apr 5, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Tim Smith wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jan Lehnardt