"Rodney Dawes" wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 12:10 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Also, why would 10.10 need to be updated in any way if it already
>> supports the newer protocol?
>
>In 10.10 and 11.04, we already ship CouchDB 1.0. Why should users
>continue to have two versions installed after a
On 11/27/2010 09:55 PM, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 12:10 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Also, why would 10.10 need to be updated in any way if it already
>> supports the newer protocol?
> In 10.10 and 11.04, we already ship CouchDB 1.0. Why should users
> continue to have two version
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 12:10 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Also, why would 10.10 need to be updated in any way if it already
> supports the newer protocol?
In 10.10 and 11.04, we already ship CouchDB 1.0. Why should users
continue to have two versions installed after an upgrade to either of
those ver
]] Rodney Dawes
(I've trimmed the Cc list, I expect people to read either -devel or
u1-users-)
Hi,
| The problem with shipping couchdb 1.0 as a separate binary package (or
| set thereof), means that it's no longer a simple SRU to 10.04. We would
| also need to provide an SRU for desktopcouch on
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 11:14 -0500, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 23:06 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Since the two are not compatible with one another, its entirely possible
> > that people have built and deployed applications on CouchDB 0.10 and
> > Ubuntu 10.04, and would be extreme
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 23:06 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Since the two are not compatible with one another, its entirely possible
> that people have built and deployed applications on CouchDB 0.10 and
> Ubuntu 10.04, and would be extremely upset if we shoved an update into
> the archive that broke t
