Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 790297D34 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 89064 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2011 09:42:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 88986 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2011 09:42:03 -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 88977 invoked by uid 99); 6 Oct 2011 09:42:03 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:42:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-iy0-f180.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username rnewson, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:42:03 +0000 Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so4300154iah.11 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:42:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.6.148 with SMTP id 20mr965609ibz.28.1317894123019; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.65.79 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:42:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: CouchDB 1.1.1 From: Robert Newson To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 While I agree on the sentiment, I don't think it's part of the decision. Even if 1.2 is months away, I don't think we can introduce such a break in a minor point release. I'm working on the patch to remove this, can some other devs please chime in soon with their opinions/votes? B. On 6 October 2011 10:34, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:30, Robert Newson wrote: >> Let's get 1.1.1 out, with the many useful bug fixes and tweaks, and >> then focus on getting 1.2 out with 1.8.5 support (and "BREAKING >> CHANGES"). > > If we're optimistic about getting 1.2 out soonish, getting 1.1.1 out > without 1.8.5 support seems fine. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >