Is there a reason to not just take current trunk and tag it as 0.9.1? I'd be +1 for making some sort of release tarball with Jan's listed commits.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > as I understand trunk is now effectively 0.10-dev. Do we want to > maintain the 0.9.x branch and backport some of the bug fixes that > go into trunk? (I'd say yes we do.) > > If yes, I'd like to propose the following commits to be backported: > > Fixes for leaked file handles, with test: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763858&view=rev > (not sure if it is possible with the other changes near that commit) > > Fix for attachment sparseness bug COUCHDB-220 by giving each attachment it's > own stream and calling set_min_buffer instead of ensure_buffer. Also fixed > spurious couch_file crash messages by putting the statistics decrement code > into a seperate monitoring process: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763816&view=rev > (Again, not sure, if it is really possible) > > Use now_diff instead of statistics(runtime). Closes COUCHDB-316: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=762019&view=rev > (Should be simple) > > And all updates to the README that are not 0.10 specific: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761352&view=rev > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761343&view=rev > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760538&view=rev > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760537&view=rev > > And I believe Noah had at least one fix for the build > system, but I don't know which one. Noah? > > > Any commits I missed? > > What do you think? > > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >
