incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: 1.3.0 discussion
Date Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:34:47 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message