incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Date Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:25:37 GMT

On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:50, Damien Katz <damien@apache.org> wrote:
>> I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are unlikely
to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing functionality.
> 
> The patch has my review. Looks safe, simple and solid.
> 

I'd like to say it again. All clear!

Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?

I've updated NEWS and CHANGES for 1.0.1.

Chris

>> 
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed
an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something
was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your
word for it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>>> 
>>> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1,
despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>>> 
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>>> 
>>> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>>> 
>>> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing
to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>>> 
>>> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer
sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>>> 
>>> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user
provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>>> 
>>> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive
backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea,
please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> 


Mime
View raw message