On 27 Jan 2011, at 19:40, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > 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.
This is a satisfactory conclusion. Thanks Dave :) Cheers Jan -- > >> And since we're not (to my knowledge) announcing Windows support on >> this release, there's nothing left to really concern ourselves with.
