Note: there's a blocking bug against the new "configurable whitelist of user document properties" which needs to be either resolved, marked "won't fix", or the current work on master needs reverting.
On 31 July 2013 16:26, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: > Dear community, > > I would like to propose that we release Apache CouchDB 1.4.0. > > The project aims to produce time-based releases. If your favourite > feature is not ready for this version, it can be included in the next > version. However, if you know of anything that should block the > release, please speak up now. > > The 1.4.0 changelog as it stands: > > Upgrade Notes > ------------- > > We now support Erlang/OTP R16B and R16B01; the minimum required version is > R14B. > > User document role values must now be strings. Other types of values will be > refused when saving the user document. > > Version 1.4.0 > ------------- > > * :issue:`1684`: Support for server-wide changes feed reporting on creation, > updates and deletion of databases. :commit:`917d8988` > * :issue:`1139`: it's possible to apply :ref:`list <listfun>` > functions to ``_all_docs`` view. :commit:`54fd258e` > * Automatic loading of CouchDB plugins. :commit:`3fab6bb5` > * :issue:`1634`: Reduce PBKDF2 work factor. :commit:`f726bc4d` > * Allow storing pre-hashed admin passwords via `_config` API. > :commit:`c98ba561` > * :issue:`1772`: Prevent invalid JSON output when using `all_or_nothing` > `_bulk_docs` API. :commit:`dfd39d57` > * Add a configurable whitelist of user document properties. :commit:`8d7ab8b1` > * :issue:`1852`: Support Last-Event-ID header in EventSource changes feeds. > :commit:`dfd2199a` > * Much improved documentation, including an :ref:`expanded description > <vdufun>` of `validate_doc_update` functions (commit:`ef9ac469`) and > a description of how CouchDB handles JSON :ref:`number values > <number-handling>` (:commit:`bbd93f77`). > * :issue:`1632`: Ignore epilogues in multipart/related MIME attachments. > :commit:`2b4ab67a` > * Split up replicator_db tests into multiple independent tests. > > Are these accurate? Please double check any work you may have done and > make sure that the corresponding changelog entries are up-to-date. > > Thanks, > > Dirkjan
