Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master fc863697e -> dbf89d30a
Some more minor edits
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/commit/dbf89d30
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/tree/dbf8
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master dbf89d30a -> d61673b7a
Minor edits, and add acknowledge_nomination.txt
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/commit/d61673b7
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/a
Great, thanks Dave!
I want to cut rc.2 on Sunday, if that's okay. Looks like I have plans
Monday, as it's a bank holiday.
On 14 March 2013 11:03, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> > On 13 March 2013 22:00, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I am aborting the vote on this release candidate.
> >
> > We're going to
1,000,000 commits isn't cool. You know what's cool? 1,000,000,000.
On 14 March 2013 19:16, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 01:05 , Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>
> > On 13 March 2013 23:18, Noah Slater wrote:
> >> Dave,
> >>
> >> For rc.2, there is no need to pull the binaries.
>
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master d61673b7a -> d8c055880
Minor changes
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/commit/d8c05588
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/tree/d8c05588
Dif
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master d8c055880 -> 2cca480b2
Minor change
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/commit/2cca480b
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/tree/2cca480b
Diff
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master 2cca480b2 -> 39594b7a2
Minor change
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/commit/39594b7a
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/couchdb-admin/tree/39594b7a
Diff
Hey folks,
I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18
These just happen to be two pull requests I looked at today, there are more.
On the one hand, this is great. Obviously. Any sort of constructive
Might another solution be to add "dev@couchdb.apache.org" to the Github
repos. Wouldn't that mean that new comments would be posted to the list? If
we could do that, it would side step the entire problem. (Namely: exposing
these discussions to the dev list.)
Can someone think of a way to do this t
It's a minor point, and probably not worth me sending another email, but I
guess the framing in my original email was wrong. It's not that we
shouldn't be having discussions on PRs, or that activity shouldn't be
happening on Github. That's not the problem, and I retract the parts where
I imply that
I think requiring the mailing list is counter intuitive. I know what the rules
and regulations are, but it's often an advantage when comments and discussion
happen where the related code is. Everything else (e.g. copy/pasting URL
references in an additional email to satisfy maybe slightly out-da
On Mar 15, 2013, at 13:36 , till wrote:
> I think requiring the mailing list is counter intuitive. I know what the
> rules and regulations are, but it's often an advantage when comments and
> discussion happen where the related code is. Everything else (e.g.
> copy/pasting URL references in a
Till, yeah. My original email was my knee-jerk. And I knew it sounded
awful as I was writing it. (See the end of the email for the admission of
that.) I think pulling in the comments *from* Github is the way forward
here. I see Jan is pursing this with Infra at the moment. Thanks Jan! And
thanks fo
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Till, yeah. My original email was my knee-jerk. And I knew it sounded
> awful as I was writing it. (See the end of the email for the admission of
> that.) I think pulling in the comments *from* Github is the way forward
> here. I see Jan is pur
Benoit,
Jan is looking into a way of getting all Github comments sent to the ML.
That solves both problems. It allows people more comfortable with Github to
comment on the PRs in the context of Github. (Which is obviously
preferable.) And it allows the project to have a permanent record of the
dis
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13603441#comment-13603441
]
Garren Smith commented on COUCHDB-1708:
---
I've been trying to get this working with
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ryan Ramage updated COUCHDB-1708:
-
Assignee: (was: Ryan Ramage)
> The bbb server task should work and allow you to make ch
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ryan Ramage updated COUCHDB-1708:
-
Assignee: Ryan Ramage
> The bbb server task should work and allow you to make changes witho
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Garren Smith updated COUCHDB-1708:
--
Assignee: Garren Smith
> The bbb server task should work and allow you to make changes wi
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
>
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
^ I opened that one (obviously(?))
>
> https://github.com/cloudant-labs/couchdb/pull/18
>
> These just happen to be two pull reque
Github user emjayess closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>
> 1,000,000 commits isn't cool. You know what's cool? 1,000,000,000.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14 March 2013 19:16, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 01:05 , Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 March 2013 23:18, Noah Slater wro
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1690?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13603483#comment-13603483
]
Ryan Ramage commented on COUCHDB-1690:
--
Hey, not totally related, but I got the jen
On Mar 15, 2013, at 17:22 , matt j. sorenson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 1,000,000 commits isn't cool. You know what's cool? 1,000,000,000.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 March 2013 19:16, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2013, at 01:05 ,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1690?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13603488#comment-13603488
]
Simon Metson commented on COUCHDB-1690:
---
Nice Ryan! Can you open a separate ticket
I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems with the way we do things at
Apache, Matt. But there are very good reasons for all of these things. And
I am happy to talk to you about them, if you're interested?
We keep things on our own infrastructure so that we are vendor neutral, and
so that we c
We use VCS because we're using SvnPubSub to publish to the Foundation-wide
distribution directory. I believe this makes the sysadmin stuff easier. And
I guess it adds an audit trail for the things we're shipping.
On 15 March 2013 16:28, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 17:22 , matt j
Just to confirm, I am happy to go with Paul's better judgment on this, and
I believe the PR can be merged.
On 13 March 2013 23:57, Noah Slater wrote:
> Yeah, there's a good chance I'm just been a n00b about the whole thing,
> Russell. :)
>
>
> On 13 March 2013 23:05, Russell Branca wrote:
>
>>
Note to the list. I am flagging this thread as something to distill into
our community guide. I think it's important we talk about this somewhere
that is a little less easy to loose than a mailing list post. (And
unfortunately, it is not clear in the main ASF doc that we mirror things to
the mailin
Github user chewbranca closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/52
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Note to the list. I am flagging this thread as something to distill into
> our community guide. I think it's important we talk about this somewhere
> that is a little less easy to loose than a mailing list post.
I suspect that you've hit the
Russell Branca created COUCHDB-1709:
---
Summary: Add version info to fauxton, like futon has now for
displaying what version or commit sha you're running
Key: COUCHDB-1709
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/brows
Yeah, probably. I have a love/hate relationship with most technology.
Mailing list software is no exception. It sort of gets the job done, but
could be better in many respects. It's what we have though, so it's up to
us to figure out how to make the most of it.
Something that keeps me sane is that
(I would also point out that we're not expected to use the ML as the
default place to go to to find out information about the project. We can
search the archives, for sure, but that should be a last remote. Important
information, decisions, etc, should be taken out, and put in the code, in
JIRA, on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1708?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13603579#comment-13603579
]
Russell Branca commented on COUCHDB-1708:
-
Yeah I got bbb server working to the
Russel and other fauxton people,
One thing I just realized is that we're missing some LICENSE and
NOTICE updates for the deps checked into the fauxton branch. I went
ahead and added examples for the PouchDB stuff imported but we'll need
a section for each dependency that's checked into the source
Hey Paul,
Thanks, I didn't realize we added the relevant licenses to the LICENSE
file, I'll get that taken care of. Aside from the PouchDB stuff, the NOTICE
file was fully updated with the other dependencies.
-Russell
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> Russel and other faux
Russell Branca created COUCHDB-1710:
---
Summary: Update LICENSE file with various license info from
fauxton dependencies
Key: COUCHDB-1710
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1710
Proje
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1710?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Russell Branca updated COUCHDB-1710:
Assignee: Russell Branca
> Update LICENSE file with various license info from fauxton
Russel,
No worries. I even forgot about it till after a good sleep.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Russell Branca wrote:
> Hey Paul,
>
> Thanks, I didn't realize we added the relevant licenses to the LICENSE
> file, I'll get that taken care of. Aside from the PouchDB stuff, the NOTICE
> file w
Hey Nick,
This looks pretty great. Is it something you need assistance with? Anything
I can do to help?
Thanks,
On 22 January 2013 15:18, nicholas a. evans wrote:
> I've started hacking on an implementation of iterative map reduce that I'm
> calling "nested views". It's not nearly finished,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/43
>
>
> ^ I opened that one (obviously(?))
>
I suppose if I take the
I've actually been noticing a bit of a disconnect between GitHub PR
discussions and the mailing list.
I suppose I should finally tell everyone that as a bit of an
experiment I've actually been actively ignoring any CouchDB related
PRs to see how much discussion leaked through to the mailing list.
Definitely been meaning to provide a review for this. I'll try and get
to it in a few hours.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey Nick,
>
> This looks pretty great. Is it something you need assistance with? Anything
> I can do to help?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On 22 January 2013 15:
Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation.
This makes a lot of sense. Anyone remember Google Code? Remember how
AWESOME
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> >> Hey folks,
> >>
> >> I'd like to bring two things to your attention:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/
On 15 March 2013 20:13, matt j. sorenson wrote:
> What I get back is "this is what we've always done, so this is what we'll
> always do", which is fine.
>
I think that's a little unfair, Matt.
Admittedly, my first instinct is to say "this is policy, it's not changing,
suck it up." But only beca
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
> place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
> vendor neutral is one of the founding principals of the organisation.
>
> This makes a l
On Mar 15, 2013, at 21:40 , Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Github could be the best thing since sliced patches, but the ASF will never
>> place it's primary data on a third party, because being self-sufficient and
>> vendor neutral is one of the found
I see Paul's argument, but I don't think it's a blocker.
In my head, I imagined something like this:
1. PR is opened
2. ASF script sends notification to ML
3. Someone spots it on the ML, goes to Github, posts a comment
4. ASF script sends notification of that comment to the ML
5. Original PR auth
Yes, there is *totally* stuff I need assistance with. :) This was my
first attempt at learning Erlang, and I worked myself into a couple of
dead ends and blindly coded myself into a few corners. It's been a
few weeks since I looked at this, so it would take a little while for
me to get back up to
We used to use stg for shipping patch sets about. Having a series of patches
appear by mail that you can apply to a local review branch was pretty nice and
the tool will bundle things up and mail em for you.
On Friday, 15 March 2013 at 19:58, Paul Davis wrote:
> I've actually been noticing a
@noah I don't think we should stop at the notification. All the
comments should be sent to the ml. If not then we have to go on github
to see it. Also what if github disappear or become expensive, or
.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Simon Metson wrote:
> We used to use stg for shipping p
Sorry, Benoit. Yes that's exactly what I mean. The comment should be sent
to the list. Just like comments on JIRA tickets are also sent to the list.
And like JIRA, if you want to reply, you click the link, and make your
comment on the site.
On 15 March 2013 21:07, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> @noah
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey folks,
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to bring two thin
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> On 15 March 2013 20:13, matt j. sorenson wrote:
>
>> What I get back is "this is what we've always done, so this is what we'll
>> always do", which is fine.
>>
>
> I think that's a little unfair, Matt.
>
> Admittedly, my first instinct is to s
Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF
project.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I see Paul's argument, but I d
I'd also point out that some email clients do terrible things to
GitHub comments when using the "reply to comment" bit. Not a blocker
but it annoys me enough to mention it.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Sorry, Benoit. Yes that's exactly what I mean. The comment should be s
On 15.03.2013, at 22:16, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>
On 15.03.2013, at 22:23, Paul Davis wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
> just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
> was an acceptable requirement for people to contribute to an ASF
> project.
Even with the caveat that we c
We wouldn't be saying that you need a Github account to contribute to
CouchDB. In fact, you could post your comment to the mailing list. You
could post it via email to the original author. You could simply wait for
the PR to be merged in, and then veto the change, or what have you.
And I know this
I might also point out that he ML policy is not about ensuring that
committers can do everything via the ML, or even about ensuring that
committers can contribute to the project without ever having to use an
external service. (Think about the fact that we're using Travis for CI,
ReadTheDocs for doc
So the biggest thing here is that this won't work in a cluster. The
issue being that each step in the view chain needs to run across the
cluster so putting into every view updater is going to break things
there.
That said Benoît has a feature in rcouch that I we're going to be
working on getting b
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 15.03.2013, at 22:16, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:13 PM, matt j. sorenson
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Paul Davis
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM, matt j. sorenson
wrot
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>
> On 15.03.2013, at 22:23, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'm not sure #3 would fly at the ASF. It might though but I was
>> just trying to say that I would be surprised if we got an OK that it
>> was an acceptable requirement for people to c
On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis wrote:
> I'm personally fine with enabling as much
> collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
> on multiple fronts it is not and can not be the central hub of
> development for an Apache project.
This is a strawman.
On 15 March 2
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm personally fine with enabling as much
>> collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
>> on multiple fronts it is not and can not be the central hub of
>> development
Benoit, that is the whole point of this thread. Making sure that Github
does *not* become the sole location of important development discussions. I
am trying to make the *current situation* better. I am proposing a solution
that would turn Github pull requests into something that would work
*exactl
I would like to suggest that we bring this thread to an end. I know it is
frustrating a few people, and it is certainly starting to show in my
emails, and we're not really making any progress aside.
I would ask that if you have any remaining questions about project
governance or the Apache way, yo
Hello devs,
In an attempt to rescue the last thread I started, I am separating out a
discussion item.
I propose that we send Github new comment notifications to the dev list.
These would be triggered every time somebody comments on a pull request
that is made against the apache/couchdb repository
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Benoit, that is the whole point of this thread. Making sure that Github
> does *not* become the sole location of important development discussions. I
> am trying to make the *current situation* better. I am proposing a solution
> that would tur
I agree Benoit. This sounds like a better workflow for the project.
All I am saying is that if people want to use Github anyway, I don't think
we can stop them. And I don't think we should try. I think we should be
making it as easy to contribute to CouchDB as possible, and that includes
Github.
I think one or both of us is misunderstanding the other. First I'll
stop and write up my internal understanding of the current policy so
that we can hopefully compare notes more directly.
First, the ASF has a pretty specific policy on using the project
mailing lists to coordinate project activity
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> On 15 March 2013 22:24, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm personally fine with enabling as much
>> collaboration via GH as possible but its important to understand that
>> on multiple fronts it is not and can not be the central hub of
>> development
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we bring this thread to an end. I know it is
> frustrating a few people, and it is certainly starting to show in my
> emails, and we're not really making any progress aside.
>
> I would ask that if you have any rema
On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> You do not have to respond if you think this is a good idea. In 72 hours I
> will assume lazy consensus.
Hope you don't mind if I respond anyway.
+1
Forgot to post a link to Benoit's big commit for that thing:
https://github.com/refuge/couch_core/commit/14ad584c993e7a25c000d8db905fd0d0a88a24b4
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> So the biggest thing here is that this won't work in a cluster. The
> issue being that each step
On 15 March 2013 23:20, Paul Davis wrote:
>
> There's a much larger social issue here that is just as much about
> perception as it is about the technical side of things and that's that
> people need to understand that this is where the Discussion happens.
>
This is obviously nonsense. Discussio
+1
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> You do not have to respond if you think this is a good idea. In 72 hours I
>> will assume lazy consensus.
>
> Hope you don't mind if I respond anyway.
>
> +1
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Read Benoit's email again. He essentially suggested shutting down the
> mirror. :(
>
No i'm not . I'm suggesting to close PRs which is quite different.
I will summarise my view in better words later in the day. Not the
best time right now :
+1
On 16.03.2013, at 00:47, Paul Davis wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> You do not have to respond if you think this is a good idea. In 72 hours I
>>> will assume lazy consensus.
>>
>> Hope you d
this thread is quite ignoring the current discussion on another thread
though. The question is are we trying to hack around the problem or
solve it?
I'm -0 on that for that reason.
- benoît
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> +1
>
> On 16.03.2013, at 00:47, Paul Davis wrote:
Not trying to ignore it, Benoit. And I'm not saying I have the complete
solution to all the things we talked about. I'm just yanking out one
(minor) concrete suggestion and trying to get a green light for someone to
play around with it.
On 16 March 2013 01:04, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> this thre
Sure thing. :) Unfortunately, closing PRs means closing Github. (That's the
only way you could do it.) Though, if was reasonably certain that the rest
of your message was hinting at the same idea... :)
On 16 March 2013 00:56, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Noah Slater
+1 on sending the discussion to the ML.
Another thought is, if there was some type of consensus for what a good
patch request looked like, and was documented and understandable, a PR
on github could lead to giving the submitter instructions for the
recommended best method. Currently, it's very
85 matches
Mail list logo
