Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1364891634.3943.23.camel@devil>
References: 
 <CAL+Y1nuQHcSwS0h3+skfQ7P02COkAF-zbdRagAwDD0esgo_p8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1364762599.25355.7.camel@devil>
	<2DE1DC49-2F29-498B-82D8-2651F69CBE9E@apache.org>
	<1364769227.25355.9.camel@devil>
	<CAL+Y1nueDAnm1HiwjhtmtMyuhAXf-Trs2DXHfYt5wLP8XaZj_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1364891634.3943.23.camel@devil>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:41:27 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9qjL-+3MNHcfn-XXodsEy0CmUKRCY=CFp2ETVG_0WMk8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add OTP R16B support + upgrade Mochiweb to 2.4.2
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

not totally related but why not sending the TZ patch upstream btw? Is
there anything against that?

I'm worried we have to maintain our own versions for dependencies for
a long time instead  of pushing upstream our changes I reckon that for
a limited time we have to maintain our own set of patches (upstream
integration can be slower or don't want the patch as is - which may be
a big warning for us -) but in that cad I suggest that we also put the
patch as a diff in our own repo under a `patches/` folder so it can be
integrated differently by vendors/distributors and in that case e
those who are using a separate mochiweb install. Also it would help us
to synchronize our changes with upstream.

- beno=EEt


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Klaus Trainer <klaus_trainer@posteo.de> wr=
ote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 23:26 +0200, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>> If you run those by hand with an extra `-v` option, can you share the lo=
gs
>> somewhere?
>
> Here you are: https://www.friendpaste.com/19YnF5A2nZHea25LEShpAi
>
>>
>>
>> On 1 April 2013 00:33, Klaus Trainer <klaus_trainer@posteo.de> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 22:46 +0200, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 22:43 , Klaus Trainer <klaus_trainer@posteo.de>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Dave, what tests do you have exactly failing?
>> > > >
>> > > > I got nine (consistently) failing tests. However, it might be poss=
ible
>> > > > that a few of them are timeout related, as I'm still working with
>> > > > spinning discs (do you remember those?) on my computer here. That'=
s why
>> > > > I'd like to compare.
>> > >
>> > > Can you post your list? :)
>> >
>> > Sure, why not :)
>> >
>> > not ok 27 form_submit
>> > not ok 36 oauth
>> > not ok 39 purge
>> > not ok 46 replication
>> > not ok 47 replicator_db
>> > not ok 49 rev_stemming
>> > not ok 51 security_validation
>> > not ok 62 view_conflicts
>> > not ok 64 view_include_docs
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > K
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 15:29 +0200, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>> > > >> Hi everybody,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I have a couple more tests to make on ensuring the timezone bug i=
n
>> > > >> earlier OTP releases is correctly resolved, but the bulk of the w=
ork
>> > > >> is done. Unless somebody reports an issue, I'll include this bran=
ch in
>> > > >> master in the next week, probably cherry-picked.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [jira]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1696
>> > > >> [branch]:
>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcouchdb.git;a=3Dtree;h=3Dr=
efs/heads/1696-update-mochiweb-2-4-2;hb=3D1696-update-mochiweb-2-4-2
>> > > >>
>> > > >> A+
>> > > >> Dave
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>