On 21 October 2011 19:56, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>
>
>> nslater: Can we decide now if we're sticking with (approximately) the
>> release procedure we've been following so far or whether we have to
>> nail down all the git things and document bef
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> On 21 October 2011 19:14, Paul Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 20 October 2011, Robert Newson wrote:
This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
Chang
On 21 October 2011 19:14, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 October 2011, Robert Newson wrote:
>>> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>>>
>>> Changes since round 1;
>>>
>>> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey
Can you post this over on the tagging thread? :)
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> Yes, quite reasonable.
>
> My take on tagging was to follow what we did with SVN with only minor
> changes to account for git. So I shall describe it.
>
> First, I create a signed tag for the
Yes, quite reasonable.
My take on tagging was to follow what we did with SVN with only minor
changes to account for git. So I shall describe it.
First, I create a signed tag for the release, with its intended final
release value. In this case, exactly the string '1.1.1'. Then I build
artifacts fr
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> nslater: Can we decide now if we're sticking with (approximately) the
> release procedure we've been following so far or whether we have to
> nail down all the git things and document before round 3 can begin?
>
The actual text of the rele
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
That ignores the number of releases performed prior to the creation of
> that page. The release tarball contains the right stuff. Since the
> process is not fully automated and has never been fully documented, I
> don't think your -1 is fair.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> I think the silent consensus to not change the procedure for stable
> branches
> and ongoing votes.
>
Could you clarify?
> And I don't buy the "incomplete wiki documentation" missing the git and
> still
> having the SVN commands in there
All,
I'm aborting round 2 because of the lack of basename() on Windows.
Round 3 to follow.
nslater: Can we decide now if we're sticking with (approximately) the
release procedure we've been following so far or whether we have to
nail down all the git things and document before round 3 can begin?
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:05, Robert Newson wrote:
> That ignores the number of releases performed prior to the creation of
> that page. The release tarball contains the right stuff. Since the
> process is not fully automated and has never been fully documented, I
> don't think your -1 is fair.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 October 2011, Robert Newson wrote:
>> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>>
>> Changes since round 1;
>>
>> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.0
>> * Update CHANGES/NEWS to reflect COUCHDB-112
That ignores the number of releases performed prior to the creation of
that page. The release tarball contains the right stuff. Since the
process is not fully automated and has never been fully documented, I
don't think your -1 is fair.
However, it seems the recent addition of help to couchjs is b
On Oct 21, 2011, at 18:53 , Noah Slater wrote:
> Actually, I think I'm going to give this a -1 without testing it.
>
> We still haven't ratified how releases are meant to work with Git, so I
> don't see that we can make a release at the present time. We need to agree
> on how we're going to do t
Just to clarify, I reached this conclusion after seeing:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Release_procedure?action=diff&rev1=66&rev2=67
It occurred to me that we're attempting to release without documenting what
we're doing first. The documentation above is incomplete. Our official
release procedur
Actually, I think I'm going to give this a -1 without testing it.
We still haven't ratified how releases are meant to work with Git, so I
don't see that we can make a release at the present time. We need to agree
on how we're going to do this, and document it in both the release procedure
and test
On Thursday, 20 October 2011, Robert Newson wrote:
> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>
> Changes since round 1;
>
> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.0
> * Update CHANGES/NEWS to reflect COUCHDB-1129
> * Fix JavaScript CLI test runner
>
> We encourage the whole co
+0
OS X 10.7.2
Erlang R14B
make distcheck is fine
only two tests fail this time, changes and cookie_auth
On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>
> Changes since round 1;
>
> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> +0 . tests doesn't pas on 0SX lion . I think at least READMe should be
s/doesn't/don't
>
> tests (js+ check + signature) are ok on other platforms tested
> (freebsd 8.2 & osx 10.6) .
>
with erlang R14B03 & R14B04
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>
> Changes since round 1;
>
> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.0
> * Update CHANGES/NEWS to reflect COUCHDB-1129
> * Fix JavaScript CLI test runner
>
> We encourage the whole
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Can someone provide assistance on the new Test procedure please:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201110.mbox/%3CCA+Y+447FXqVGx8ow=ewqm86cn9epb1cnbmvhk9ku4ogujby...@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> I am not sure how best to update
Can someone provide assistance on the new Test procedure please:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201110.mbox/%3CCA+Y+447FXqVGx8ow=ewqm86cn9epb1cnbmvhk9ku4ogujby...@mail.gmail.com%3E
I am not sure how best to update the workflow for Git.
This is important. *waves hands*
On T
+1
Everything worked great. Wasn't able to check the pgp key because my
gpg client is acting up at the moment.
Cheers,
--
Sam Bisbee
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>
> Changes since round 1;
>
> * Fix object seal
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 13:44, Robert Newson wrote:
> This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
>
> Changes since round 1;
>
> * Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.0
> * Update CHANGES/NEWS to reflect COUCHDB-1129
> * Fix JavaScript CLI test runner
>
> We encourage the whole
The list_views and attachments error are symptoms of not clearing your
browser cache before starting. I'm not sure about the rev_stemming
one.
Please include all information within the text of your post. These are
all archived and form a historical record of the release process.
B.
On 20 Octobe
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 19:44, Robert Newson wrote:
> We encourage the whole community to download and test these release
> artifacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the release
> is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release. Please report your
> results and vote to this th
This is the second release vote for Apache CouchDB 1.1.1
Changes since round 1;
* Fix object sealing with SpiderMonkey 1.7.0
* Update CHANGES/NEWS to reflect COUCHDB-1129
* Fix JavaScript CLI test runner
We encourage the whole community to download and test these release
artifacts so that any cr
26 matches
Mail list logo
