Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender)
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=Re/ptc9rDoiCOJFgOKWYusw3osZfOGofI3xpuacK1cPq2ejHVIiwa5IzlAFkZIfFoF
         /bjHp2IksV+JB+cfksvDMo72nMmmE/Z/imlLfqoDdo9EktPhFD+O7Kcu9dG6u2NaI7wc
         LBiif5kON9eOrZABN2RHkwEd2W66giY+6O3u4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50C9C524-6B6E-455D-A945-E14ED2CEEEFD@apache.org>
References: <917133A8-7174-4245-92F3-6D65C6904C87@apache.org>
	<C43196CF-7958-4391-AC08-F75B8B32E73E@apache.org>
	<AANLkTim+g5qfM5dA275_nO+mA3mG93LWHFe7xfPPuEX9@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim19xQSrt+FbdtnhFFOo=GywFiOQ5qY1GiFfuUV@mail.gmail.com>
	<62A06786-3199-4889-8BB0-D543F21CE715@apache.org>
	<AANLkTi=CLty+0c2oztEinkvdYsHtCD8MGUHUbBQdbz3B@mail.gmail.com>
	<6AF06E19-7B74-4881-864D-D59BFC9835D1@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik+BokToVCvdG_+kxRDTge9X4DQqRixgi2U8+O8@mail.gmail.com>
	<82D65CA6-40AF-431B-9242-4CAC08CAE8B0@apache.org>
	<AE023B0A-4066-4D46-8EF1-B48D5610430D@apache.org>
	<2B6E17BE-0ECA-4901-A3FA-5F8F88DBF8DB@apache.org>
	<50C9C524-6B6E-455D-A945-E14ED2CEEEFD@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:51:32 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=aa7q0jWzujs2FdbsuGMQu-ZPSgmsuknwGPV8p@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

>
> 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
>>