[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13037277#comment-13037277
]
Randall Leeds commented on COUCHDB-687:
---
+1 as well for having the digest_type in t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1171?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Alexander Shorin updated COUCHDB-1171:
--
Affects Version/s: 1.1
1.0.3
Same behavior for 1.0.3 and 1.1.0
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1172?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jake Levirne updated COUCHDB-1172:
--
Attachment: couch.log
Failed futon test was from the run starting at ~[Fri,
20 May 2011 15:38
replicator_db futon test failing
Key: COUCHDB-1172
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1172
Project: CouchDB
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Test Suite
Affects Versions: 1.1
Thanks, Paul. I don't see the replicator_db one in JIRA, so I'll file it.
I can get the stats one to reproduce consistently in my environment,
so if I can be of any help to Adam or others in continuing to test
this, let me know.
Best,
-Jake
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Jake Levirne wrote:
> Hi All-
>
> I had posted a note a little while back about futon tests failing for
> me, but I was running against trunk. I'm now running against a dev
> build of the 1.1.x branch (make dev; utils/run) and still getting
> futon test suite erro
Hi All-
I had posted a note a little while back about futon tests failing for
me, but I was running against trunk. I'm now running against a dev
build of the 1.1.x branch (make dev; utils/run) and still getting
futon test suite errors (below). All my etap tests pass.
I'm new to the couchb commu
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> Any objection about doing this change before 1.1.0 is released?
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339
>
> Sounds good, supposing it won't delay 1.1.0 too much.
It won't, it's a 5 minutes change :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
--
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:41, Filipe David Manana wrote:
> Yesterday, via the IRC channel, Max Odgen suggested using RFC3339 [1]
> compliant timestamps in replication documents. Currently they are Unix
> timestamps (number of seconds since January 1st 1970).
> I like the idea, I find it much more
Hi all,
Yesterday, via the IRC channel, Max Odgen suggested using RFC3339 [1]
compliant timestamps in replication documents. Currently they are Unix
timestamps (number of seconds since January 1st 1970).
I like the idea, I find it much more human readable (it's text based).
Any objection about do
10 matches
Mail list logo