On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:50, Damien Katz <dam...@apache.org> wrote: > I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are > unlikely to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing > functionality.
The patch has my review. Looks safe, simple and solid. > > On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote: > >> >> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote: >>> >>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed >>>> an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back >>>> from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me >>>> know. >>> >>> >>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your >>> word for it. >>> >> >> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;) >> >> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to >> 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. >> (it's a new feature) >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision >> >> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy." >> >> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be >> freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days. >> >> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to >> offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them. >> >> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the >> user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs >> is very small. >> >> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The >> preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. >> If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common >> ground. >> >> Chris >>
