I think we should, at a minimum: * Abort this round * Land the R15B patch * Land COUCHDB-1426 (which seems easy) * Start round three
I think we should try to: * Try to land COUCHDB-1424 * Get clarification on the performance issues For these last two items, I think we should impose a time limit. Let's say a week. I think we should also form some teams, to see if we can do some sprints to get these issues fixed. On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2012, at 16:47 , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 16:29, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Proposed Action: > >> > >> I'd propose to release 1.2.0 as-is with the following points mentioned > >> in the release notes (the exact wording of which is to be done): > >> > >> 1. Note that this release is incompatible with Erlang R15B. A patch is > >> available at [LINK to DIFF]; it will appear in Apache CouchDB 1.2.1. > >> > >> 2. Also note that there are some reports of a performance regression in > >> view building. While initial and ad-hoc tests showed an improvement in > >> most cases, we'd like to ask our users to report any significant > >> differences to the Apache CouchDB 1.1.1 release. > > > > While I am usually cheering on the release process, taken together it > > seems more prudent to abort this round, take the R15B driver and the > > 142{4,6} patches and then starting a new round. > > I'd agree if 142{4,6} were decided tickets, but they are still ongoing > and potentially, in the 24-case especially, for a while. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >
