Agree that its time to get the fdb-layer work into master, that's where couchdb 4.0 should be being created.
thanks for preserving the imported ebtree history. > On 9 Sep 2020, at 17:28, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The merge on this turned out to be a lot more straightforward so I > think its probably the way to go. I've got a failing test in > couch_views_active_tasks_test but it appears to be flaky rather than a > merge error. I'll work though getting `make check` to complete and > then send another update. > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/tree/prototype/fdb-layer-final-merge > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/commit/873ccb4882f2e984c25f59ad0fd0a0677b9d4477 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:29 AM Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Howdy folks! >> >> I've just gone through a rebase of `prototype/fdb-layer` against >> master. Its not quite finished because the ebtree import went wrong >> during rebase due to a weirdness of the history. >> >> I have a PR up for the rebase into master for people to look at [1]. >> Although the more important comparison is likely with the current >> `prototype/fdb-layer` that can be found at [2]. >> >> Given the ebtree aspect, as well as the fact that I get labeled as the >> committer for all commits when doing a rebase I'm also wondering if we >> shouldn't turn this into a merge in this instance. I'll work up a >> second branch that shows that diff as well that we could then rebase >> onto master. >> >> Regardless, I'd appreciate if we could get some eyeballs on the diff >> and then finally merge this work to the default branch so its the main >> line development going forward. >> >> Paul >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3137 >> [2] >> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/compare/prototype/fdb-layer...prototype/fdb-layer-final-rebase
