On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2011, at 13:03, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > >> In this case I don't care much if we record any of this (no objections >> either). What I am after is that the fact that for reliable storage on >> Windows Erlang R14B1 is required for 1.0.2 should be noted in a place where >> people downloading or reading up on 1.0.2 are looking (i.e. the release >> announcement mail, which gets syndicated to many news sites as well as the >> download page, where, duh, the download happens). > > Sure. But I'm just trying to clarify how we handle this, so that we can apply > it to future releases as well. If there's been a minimum required version in > the past, we usually put it in the README. > > We have never, to date, included any minimum version information in either > the release announcement or on the downloads page. If the community feels > that this is important enough in this case to warrant breaking with that > convention, then so be it. > > But I'm trying to get a handle on when this is likely to happen again, so > that we can ratify it in our release procedure.
Of note is that Windows users don't actually care about this for the most part. Its important to remember that the large majority of Windows users will only be downloading the prebuilt binaries. Therefore, seeing as very few people would actually be building CouchDB on Windows, I would just update the README on whatever branches that it requires R14B01. And since we're not (to my knowledge) announcing Windows support on this release, there's nothing left to really concern ourselves with.
