couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Shorin <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Officially deprecate CouchDB 1.x.
Date Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:43:34 GMT
1.x, you was good and we'll never forget you, but it's time to move
forward to better CouchDB future.

+1, bury it!

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Joan Touzet <> wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: This is a non-technical proposal to make a project decision.
> Per our Bylaws[1], this means that it should "normally be made with lazy
> consensus, or by the entire community using discussion-led
> consensus-building, and not through formal voting." However, since the
> intent is to make a significant policy change, this concrete proposal
> should be considered as a *lazy consensus* decision with a *7 day*
> timeframe (expiring on or about 2017-07-11, 23:59 UTC. Please give this
> thread your ample consideration.
> I would like to table[2] a proposal to terminate official Apache support
> for CouchDB 1.x. This means that:
>   1. The Apache CouchDB project will no longer make new 1.x releases.
>   2. All remaining 1.x issues in JIRA and GH Issues will be closed.
>   3. Everyone can continue to use 1.x as long as they want.
>   4. People are welcome to continue discussing 1.x on the users@ list.
> The reason is simple: no one is maintaining the 1.x.x branches of
> CouchDB anymore. Issues stack up on the tracker[3] with no response.
> Original grand plans of back-porting 2.x features such as Mango to 1.x
> have not materialised. And when important security issues surface[4],
> having to patch 1.x as well as 2.x slows down the security team's
> ability to push releases quickly out the door.
> By focusing on what we do best - supporting 2.x and beyond with bug
> fixes, new features, and ever-improving documentation and web UI - we
> can improve our release cadence and avoid misleading our user base
> with false promises.
> THAT SAID: There are two important footnotes to the proposal.
> FIRST: If a group of interested maintainers start making active efforts
> to improve 1.x branch upkeep, I can speak with the full authority of the
> PMC to say that we'll endorse those efforts. But to un-mothball
> 1.x officially should require more than 1-2 people doing occasional
> bugfixing work. I'd personally want to see at least a 3-person team
> making sustained contributions to 1.x before re-activating official
> releases. Also, that work would need to be in-line with work currently
> happening on master; I wouldn't want to see new 1.x features materialise
> that don't have parallel commits to master. (Much preferred would be to
> see people fixing the things in 2.x that prevent people migrating off
> of 1.x instead.)
> SECOND: Let a thousand forks bloom. If you're looking to build a CouchDB
> 1.x fork that has baked in geo/full text search, Mango, Fauxton, and
> can run on VMS, OS/2 Warp 4, NeXTStep 3.x, and Palm, have at it. I'll
> even write a blog post about your project. (Sounds interesting!)
> Again, this proposal defaults to lazy consensus with a 7-day expiry
> period. CouchDB committers have binding "votes" on this proposal.
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Joan "to infinity, and beyond" Touzet
> [1]
> [2] In the non-U.S. sense of the word, i.e., meaning to begin
>     consideration of a proposal.
> [3]
> [4]

View raw message