On 27 January 2011 03:23, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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).
The wiki "Installing on Windows" notes this & I've added a link to the unofficial builds I did this week if anybody wishes to test it out https://github.com/downloads/dch/couchdb/setup-couchdb-1.0.2_otp_R14B01_spidermonkey_1.8.5.exe >> 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. Agreed - maybe in INSTALL.Windows then. > And since we're not (to my knowledge) announcing Windows support on > this release, there's nothing left to really concern ourselves with.
