incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 1.3.0 discussion
Date Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:46:50 GMT
My ability to respond is low right now due to being on holiday but am
psyched to see plans forming.

One task worth a day of someone's time is to check that the
news/changes file includes description of every fix since 1.2. Should
be pretty good but probably isn't complete. I recall an important fix
to ssl support, for example, which I may not have written up well.

Tying every single fix or feature to a Jira ticket will be great too.

Sent from the ocean floor

On 4 Oct 2012, at 12:35, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> Basically, after we ship 1.3, I want to set up a release cadence and create
> a 1.4 release branch, and only allow things into it that follow a merge
> procedure.
>
> Take a look at these:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Roadmap_Process
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Merge_Procedure
>
> There are a few @@ notes I put on there for Bob. Perhaps you can take a
> look?
>
> If you wanna help me get something like this set up, that's awesome!
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Octavian Damiean <mainerror@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I can recommend "Version Control with Git" from O'Reilly (ISBN-13:
>> 978-1449316389).
>>
>> If Paul or Bob are not reachable for some reason don't hesitate to contact
>> me too. :)
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I am full time on Apache at the moment, split between CouchDB docs and
>>> CloudStack. Agree with everything I've seen in this thread, especially
>> the
>>> scope of what's included in 1.3.
>>>
>>> I have one thing to add. I think, after this release, we should adopt the
>>> release cadence and merge procedure that we came up with in Dublin, that
>>> has been proposed to the list before. (This ties into Bob's suggestion to
>>> use 1.3 as the stable base on which to start merging in all the forks.)
>>> It's not really had much discussion since then. Only problem is that I
>> need
>>> someone to lend a hand with the Git side of things. So I'm looking for
>>> someone to join me in some release team activity to get things properly
>> set
>>> up and communicated out to the community. (Looking at you Paul, Bob. One
>> of
>>> you, don't need both.)
>>>
>>> So, who wants to buddy up with me to get this done, post-1.3? Don't all
>>> step forward at once.
>>>
>>> (I'm planning to buy a book on Git. I'm fed up of being so clueless...)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 3, 2012 10:48 PM, "Dave Cottlehuber" <dch@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 October 2012 21:41, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only other thing I'd add is that we talked about importing Jiffy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, I'd be up for that. Um did you find (in cloudant land) that it
>>>>> handled parsing large docs better? The current ejson struggles
>>>>> sometimes I think. Better would mean without spitting the dummy
>>>>> completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> A+
>>>>> Dave
>>>> We arw using jiffy in rcouch. It solves some errors too. It is also
>>> faster
>>>> on large docs, On thing I'm not sure with using a nif here is how it
>>>> behaves with dbs containing obky relatively larges docs? If it blocks
>> the
>>>> scheduling too much or not.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe cloudant can answer here?
>>>>
>>>> benoƮt
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> NS
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS

Mime
View raw message