couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johs Ensby <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Officially deprecate CouchDB 1.x.
Date Sun, 08 Jul 2018 12:59:00 GMT
Thanks Joan,

Your take on the data is
> To me the data is more proof that asking to keep 1.x on a lifeline is
> serving a vanishingly small amount of users.

I see no proof in the data and I disagree with respect how to best go about "serving a vanishingly
small amount of users."

My take on the data is guesswork, but I would love to see someone tare it down with data:

1) Millions have played with CouchDB (we are now left with a vanishingly small amount of these)
2) Tens of thousands of servers are running with CouchDB today
    (20 000+ downloads of 2.x for Debian/Ubuntu/CebtOs/RHEL over a year indicate intention
to upgrade, however, not actual upgrade)
3) Average 100+/day downloads of 2.1.1 is another indicator of upgrade activity being strong.
4) Thousands of sysops/sysdevs have CouchDB 1.x as part of their stack, they have not been
heard in this discussion yet
5) Regarding developer activity and experimentation, the spikes connected to releases are
 -- 2,237 downloads of 1.7.1 for Windows on the same day early January is a significant spike
that I don't know the background for.
 -- Spikes for 2.x on Mac indicate 600-900 active Mac-using developers, but we don't know
much about the sysops' plans to upgrade

Regarding my offer to write a paper to make a case for keeping 1.x open you said
>>> Thanks for the offer. Before writing up a full paper, what would
>>> your first 3 acts be?
I thought you wanted me to hold my horses and do this step by step
It would be a bit akward to start discussing the point 2-3 until having feeback on my intentions.
Should I proceed to point 1?

I still think your proposal, as it was "tabled" had been better without the first what-it-means-point,
which is a far-reaching decision with unclear benefit.
Also, I think the result of the recent user survey should be published to support the decision


> On 7 Jul 2018, at 19:18, Joan Touzet <> wrote:
> Johs Ensby wrote:
>> Thanks for this, Joan
>> You must have put a lot time and effort into this and it is _highly
>> appreciated_.
> You're welcome.
>> The "official" seems
>> like a
>> nice place to follow the trend. 
> For a limited amount of data, compared to how popular the binary
> distributions from are, yes.
> If Infra is able to give us access to the archived closer.lua data,
> we should be able to get a better picture of relative popularity,
> at least for people who click through to
> download the tarball.
>> What is in second column, download
>> time?
> The script that generates the file is at:
> That field is generated on line 464, which is grabbing the final octet
> of the IP address for uniqueness. This can help de-duplicate data, or
> look for "ballot-stuffing" by someone trying to make one download or the
> other look more popular. ;)
>> Although it is hard to compile totals out of this, the fact that the
>> numbers are
>> small is a fact. 
> Again, compared to the binary downloads. Including the Docker downloads
> (which do not separate by version #, which is why I haven't included them
> in my email) there are 30+ million downloads of CouchDB in the wild.
> To me the data is more proof that asking to keep 1.x on a lifeline is
> serving a vanishingly small amount of users.
>> Lost of upside and few people to deal with as the
>> base,
>> which means that anyone who value CouchDB today can make a huge
>> impact, relatively speeking.
> In terms of people making a large impact, it's more about the total
> number of contributors and committers to the project. As a PMC member,
> I want to see more contributors and committers who are interested in
> making CouchDB better, not in publicity hounds who just want to pad
> their resume by working on a high-profile OSS project. (Not pointing
> fingers at you, just thinking out loud.)
>> Thanks also for this response:
>>> Thanks for the offer. Before writing up a full paper, what would
>>> your
>>> first 3 acts be?
>> 1) State my intentions, for feedback
>> 2) Table my case for a 1.x branch with limit scope, again for feeback
>> 3) Table an outline
> In terms of 1.x scope, my first choice is to end support for it.
> Every single committer has voted +1 on this proposal so far; only you
> and one other dev have cast non-binding votes against it.
> If there is sufficient interest to continue with 1.x, the primary
> need is for someone to maintain it for security patches only. This
> would need to be established committer(s) on the project who would
> be available rapidly to patch and spin new releases if and when any
> security issues are raised by external reporters confidentially.
> If there's even more interest beyond that, then the only scope
> I can see is for bug fixes based on GitHub issue tracker posts, or
> at the very most, back ports of any 2.x features or changes that
> will make the migration to 2.x easier. This might include many
> deprecation warnings we talked about at one point.
> I don't want to see branched development on 1.x that adds new
> 1.x-only features, or back ports of major new 2.x functionality
> like Mango or clustering.
> I don't speak for the rest of the PMC on this.
> -Joan

View raw message