On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Randall Leeds wrote: > 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.
Thanks to Filipe who actually wrote it. I just committed it because he said he was going to sleep right then and I couldn't stand to wait. Chris > >> >> 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 >>>
