Dug into this a bit more with Nick's help on IRC. These are the two
new tests for validating the fix to mochiweb for small buffers that
are failing. It *appears* that the function Nick built to restart
chttpd is not working right on Windows.
To wit, I can repeat the test without a chttpd/mochiweb
Tested just now on Windows 10.
Signature: passes
Checksums: pass
make check: fails repeatedly, times out on these two tests:
chttpd_socket_buffer_size_test:71: buffer_too_small_url_fails...
chttpd_socket_buffer_size_test:83: buffer_too_small_header_fails...
Full log of the failures
Russell confirmed on IRC. The vote can proceed.
For extra safety: if anyone runs make check on this tarball and find test fails
in the log, please post them here, that would block the release.
It's all fine on Travis and I think Jenkins.
Cheers
Jan
—
> On 1. Mar 2019, at 11:17, Jan Lehnardt
> On 1. Mar 2019, at 15:26, Robert Newson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The first decision is to what extent we are supporting the "old" version
> (once the new one exists, of course). I think it would be limited to security
> fixes.
Eventually yes, but I can imagine a grace period for bugfix
Hi,
The first decision is to what extent we are supporting the "old" version (once
the new one exists, of course). I think it would be limited to security fixes.
If so, this is exactly the same as when we released 1.2, 1.3, and so on. Master
is always latest (FDB, in this case) and there are
There are ongoing discussions about rebasing CouchDB on top of FoundationDB. It
seems like the community is in agreement that it is worth it to try. This would
mean that we would be supporting and extending two quite separate codebases.
How are we going to do it?
Possible options are:
- brand
I have a hard time reconciling those statements with what I’m seeing in the
logs:
Consider this snippet from the latest 2.3.x build log[1]:
https://gist.github.com/janl/3c7db5f3ff466f9985306253d61abc3b
It is the output for couchdb_views_tests[2], which has 5 test groups defined,
and all test
