Thanks!
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 00:31 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> > Good catch, will do in the morning.
>
> Done.
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> > On 02.03.2012, at 20:00, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> >> Have you updated NEWS and CHANGES?
> >>
On Mar 3, 2012, at 00:31 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Good catch, will do in the morning.
Done.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
> On 02.03.2012, at 20:00, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> Have you updated NEWS and CHANGES?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2012, a
Good catch, will do in the morning.
Cheers
Jan
--
On 02.03.2012, at 20:00, Noah Slater wrote:
> Have you updated NEWS and CHANGES?
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 17:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> Vote aborted. Thanks to everyone who took
Have you updated NEWS and CHANGES?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 17:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Vote aborted. Thanks to everyone who took part.
> >
> > Five people have claimed ownership of the five remaining tasks:
> >
> > * Bob Dionne will driving
On Mar 2, 2012, at 17:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
> Vote aborted. Thanks to everyone who took part.
>
> Five people have claimed ownership of the five remaining tasks:
>
> * Bob Dionne will driving COUCHDB-1424
> * Benoît Chesneau will be driving COUCHDB-1426
> * Jan Lehnardt will be driving the R1
Vote aborted. Thanks to everyone who took part.
Five people have claimed ownership of the five remaining tasks:
* Bob Dionne will driving COUCHDB-1424
* Benoît Chesneau will be driving COUCHDB-1426
* Jan Lehnardt will be driving the R15B patch
* Robert Newson will be driving the performance work
On Mar 2, 2012, at 17:02 , Noah Slater wrote:
> I think we should, at a minimum:
>
> * Abort this round
> * Land the R15B patch
> * Land COUCHDB-1426 (which seems easy)
> * Start round three
>
> I think we should try to:
>
> * Try to land COUCHDB-1424
> * Get clarification on the performance i
+1. Abort this, get the fixes we have in and start round 3. The
performance regression issue is elusive, we might, out of necessity,
have to defer action on that until post 1.2.0.
On 2 March 2012 16:02, Noah Slater wrote:
> I think we should, at a minimum:
>
> * Abort this round
> * Land the R15
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 17:02, Noah Slater wrote:
> I think we should, at a minimum:
>
> * Abort this round
> * Land the R15B patch
> * Land COUCHDB-1426 (which seems easy)
> * Start round three
>
> I think we should try to:
>
> * Try to land COUCHDB-1424
> * Get clarification on the performance is
I think we should, at a minimum:
* Abort this round
* Land the R15B patch
* Land COUCHDB-1426 (which seems easy)
* Start round three
I think we should try to:
* Try to land COUCHDB-1424
* Get clarification on the performance issues
For these last two items, I think we should impose a time limit
On Mar 2, 2012, at 16:47 , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 16:29, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> Proposed Action:
>>
>> I'd propose to release 1.2.0 as-is with the following points mentioned
>> in the release notes (the exact wording of which is to be done):
>>
>> 1. Note that this rel
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 16:29, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Proposed Action:
>
> I'd propose to release 1.2.0 as-is with the following points mentioned
> in the release notes (the exact wording of which is to be done):
>
> 1. Note that this release is incompatible with Erlang R15B. A patch is
> available
+1
On 2 March 2012 15:29, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Thanks Benoit!
>
> * * *
>
> As an update to the ongoing 1.2.0 release these issues were raised:
>
> - Performance regression (A thread on dev@)
> - Multiple Spidermonkey version detection (COUCHDB-1426)
> - R15B icu_driver compatibility (git bra
Thanks Benoit!
* * *
As an update to the ongoing 1.2.0 release these issues were raised:
- Performance regression (A thread on dev@)
- Multiple Spidermonkey version detection (COUCHDB-1426)
- R15B icu_driver compatibility (git branch R15B0-driver)
- R15B make check hang on Mac OS X Lion (COU
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> Posted a patch fixing COUCHDB-1426.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1426
After some discussions, I made the issue none blocking but critical.
I'm now +0 I guess.
- benoît
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>>>
>>> We encourage the whole
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>>
>> We encourage the whole community to download and test these
>> release artifacts so tha
"you might want to revisit the release process"
You mean "we" here. :)
B.
On 29 February 2012 16:23, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> thanks for your reply. I think this is a bit of a convoluted situation now
> and I want to apologise for anything that might have upset you or anyone
> here.
Hi Bob,
thanks for your reply. I think this is a bit of a convoluted situation now and
I want to apologise for anything that might have upset you or anyone here. I
didn't mean to be insulting or anything.
I think the 1.2.0 release is very important for this community and the project,
so I am v
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:25:37PM +0100, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> I ran Robert's test with a tiny doc and minimal view and saw the 25%
> performance drop, but using more realistic doc sizes and views show
> and improvement for 1.2.x (in one case 1k docs with a view that emits
> a complex key and an i
Jan,
Sorry it took me a while to respond to this. As I said the db I was testing
with is about ~200K docs, with one large ddoc, about 10 views. It takes a
considerable long time to index, both on 1.1.x and 1.2.x but on 1.2.x it had
not made the same amount of progress after 45 minutes on 1.2.x
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
> Also noah, jan what is the status of this vote? Should we consider it
> as aborted or paused?
As far as I can tell, we have not identified, for sure, a release blocking
issue. Once we are sure that there is a release blocking issue, I w
I'm running my script on a EC2 node with spinning media, the numbers
come out the same for 1.1.1 vs 1.2. The only time I've seen a slowdown
with a scripted approach is my original one which didn't use bulk
docs. :/
B.
On 28 February 2012 11:33, Bob Dionne wrote:
> Filipe,
>
> This additional pat
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Paul Davis
> wrote
>>
>> Yeah, I've seen the btree behave quite differently on SSD's vs HDD's
>> (same code had drastically different runtime characteristics).
>>
>> In other words, can we get a report of
Filipe,
This additional patch looks good, though I haven't tested it. Interesting
comment about R15B, I did notice a difference with BigCouch in terms of some of
the internal race conditions we see at times. Perhaps there are some
performance changes relating to that. I also recently upgraded f
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Paul Davis wrote
>
> Yeah, I've seen the btree behave quite differently on SSD's vs HDD's
> (same code had drastically different runtime characteristics).
>
> In other words, can we get a report of what type of disk everyone is running
> on?
>
+ 1 .
We actually p
Jason, made some more tests with larger documents (template is
https://gist.github.com/1930804) and a different map function:
function(doc) {
emit([doc.type, doc.category], doc.nested.coords);
}
(patch http://friendpaste.com/5C99aqXocN6N6H1BAYIigs)
Here's the results I got ( https://gist.gith
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Filipe David Manana
wrote:
> Jason, can't reproduce those results, not even close:
>
> http://friendpaste.com/1L4pHH8WQchaLIMCWhKX9Z
>
> Before COUCHDB-1186
>
> fdmanana 16:58:02 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)> docs=50
> batch=5 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
>
Jason, can't reproduce those results, not even close:
http://friendpaste.com/1L4pHH8WQchaLIMCWhKX9Z
Before COUCHDB-1186
fdmanana 16:58:02 ~/git/hub/slow_couchdb (master)> docs=50
batch=5 ./bench.sh small_doc.tpl
Server: CouchDB/1.2.0a-a68a792-git (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
{"couchdb":"Welcome",
Hi, Filipe. Most people seem to be holding their OTP build constant
for these tests.
If you have the time, would you please check out
https://github.com/jhs/slow_couchdb
It uses seatoncouch mixed with Bob's script to run a basic benchmark.
I expect more template types to grow to help create diffe
If the fix is simple enough, I would prefer to see it in. The effects sound
moderately serious, and this effects the most recent Erlang, not some
legacy shit.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> If the R15/64 bit fix is the only issue with round 2, then I vote with
> Jan to d
If the R15/64 bit fix is the only issue with round 2, then I vote with
Jan to defer it to 1.2.1. If we're opening up round 3 for any reason,
I'd like to see it go in.
b.
On 27 February 2012 19:09, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 18:09 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to give this
On Feb 23, 2012, at 18:09 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> I'm happy to give this a +1 if we put a warning about R15B on the download
> page.
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=commit;h=b1af764b refers
to an issue that makes operation under R15B potentially dangerous. We haven't
seen
On Feb 27, 2012, at 19:11 , Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1424 for details on
>> this. So far we haven't been able to show that this happens on systems
>> other than Mac OS X 10.7.3. If true, I w
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1424 for details on
> this. So far we haven't been able to show that this happens on systems
> other than Mac OS X 10.7.3. If true, I wouldn't consider this a release
> blocker.
This doesn'
On Feb 27, 2012, at 18:19 , Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that 1.2.x won't hang.
>>
>
> There is no difference between the files you have on your branch, and the
> files in the release tarball.
For me both hang.
> You can v
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> It is interesting that 1.2.x won't hang.
>
There is no difference between the files you have on your branch, and the
files in the release tarball.
You can verify this yourself by following the steps here:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Tes
I just tried Jason's script (modified it to use 500 000 docs instead
of 50 000) against 1.2.x and 1.1.1, using OTP R14B03. Here's my
results:
1.2.x:
$ port=5984 ./test.sh
"none"
Filling db.
done
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: CouchDB/1.2.0 (Erlang OTP/R14B03)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:08:43 GMT
Content-
Bob D, can you give more details on the data set you're testing?
Number of docs, size/complexity of docs, etc? Basically, enough info
that I could write a script to automate building an equivalent
database.
I wrote a quick bash script to make a database and time a view build
here: http://friendpas
On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:58 , Bob Dionne wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. I hope I'm not conflating things by continuing
> the discussion here, I thought that's what you requested?
The discussion we had on IRC was regarding collecting more data items for the
performance regression before
I think it's worth reminding everyone that the Futon test suite is
only supported on FireFox. The reports of Chrome failing on
attachment_ranges illuminates nothing; it's a Chrome bug. It would be
news if it *didn't* fail on Chrome. :)
The performance regression, I think, is the only thing holding
Jan,
Thanks for the clarification. I hope I'm not conflating things by continuing
the discussion here, I thought that's what you requested?
I just downloaded the release candidate again to start fresh. "make distcheck"
hangs on this step:
/Users/bitdiddle/Downloads/apache-couchdb-1.2.0/apache
Bob,
thanks for your reply
I wasn't implying we should try to explain anything away. All of these are
valid concerns, I just wanted to get a better understanding on where the bit
flips from +0 to -1 and subsequently, how to address that boundary. Ideally we
can just fix all of the things you m
Jan,
I'm -1 based on all of my evaluation. I've spent a few hours on this release
now yesterday and today. It doesn't really pass what I would call the "smoke
test". Almost everything I've run into has an explanation:
1. crashes out of the box - that's R15B, you need to recompile SSL and Erlang
On Feb 26, 2012, at 13:58 , Bob Dionne wrote:
> -1
>
> R15B on OS X Lion
>
> I rebuilt OTP with an older SSL and that gets past all the crashes (thanks
> Filipe). I still see hangs when running make check, though any particular
> etap that hangs will run ok by itself. The Futon tests never ru
On Feb 26, 2012, at 13:43 , Robert Newson wrote:
> We're investigating a view indexing performance regression right now.
> I think it's still valuable to get community responses on whether the
> build artifact passes all the tests, though. If folks also want to try
> out building larger views, es
-1
R15B on OS X Lion
I rebuilt OTP with an older SSL and that gets past all the crashes (thanks
Filipe). I still see hangs when running make check, though any particular etap
that hangs will run ok by itself. The Futon tests never run to completion in
Chrome without hanging and the standalone
We're investigating a view indexing performance regression right now.
I think it's still valuable to get community responses on whether the
build artifact passes all the tests, though. If folks also want to try
out building larger views, especially if they can compare the build
time to CouchDB 1.1.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>>
>> We encourage the whole community to download and test these
>> release artifacts so tha
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>
> We encourage the whole community to download and test these
> release artifacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the
> release is mad
+1!
Jonathan Porta
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Sebastian Cohnen
wrote:
> Jonathan, you forgot to cast your vote! (Which needs to be either +1 or -1)
>
> On 24.02.2012, at 14:50, Jonathan Porta wrote:
>
>> Fedora 15 64bit, Erlang 14B04, Spidermonkey 1.8.5
>>
>> Everything checks out!
>>
>>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>
> We encourage the whole community to download and test these
> release artifacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the
> release is mad
Jonathan, you forgot to cast your vote! (Which needs to be either +1 or −1)
On 24.02.2012, at 14:50, Jonathan Porta wrote:
> Fedora 15 64bit, Erlang 14B04, Spidermonkey 1.8.5
>
> Everything checks out!
>
> Jonathan Porta
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On
Fedora 15 64bit, Erlang 14B04, Spidermonkey 1.8.5
Everything checks out!
Jonathan Porta
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 00:28, Noah Slater wrote:
>> We are voting on the following release artifacts:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~nslater/dis
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 00:28, Noah Slater wrote:
> We are voting on the following release artifacts:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nslater/dist/1.2.0/
Gentoo Linux 64-bits, Erlang 13B4, Spidermonkey 1.8.5.
Signatures check out, make check passes.
Browser tests pass in Firefox 12.0a2, although
thanks for the clarification, Bob. I wasn't ware of this issue.
On 24.02.2012, at 10:28, Robert Newson wrote:
> attachment_ranges is expected to fail on Chrome because Chrome is wrong.
>
> to prove this more clearly, change line 29 of the test to "Range":
> "bytes=0-1000" and run it agai
attachment_ranges is expected to fail on Chrome because Chrome is wrong.
to prove this more clearly, change line 29 of the test to "Range":
"bytes=0-1000" and run it again, Chrome will tell you it
fetched 1001 bytes of the 28 byte attachment. A neat trick.
B.
On 24 February 2012
OS X 10.7.3, Erlang R15B, Spidermonkey 1.8.5, tests run in Chrome 19.0.1049.3
dev
* signatures okay
* make check okay
* test suite okay (the "attachment_ranges" test constantly fails [1] in Chrome,
but works fine in FF 10.0)
So I'm +1
[1]:
expected '"bytes 0-28/29"', got '"bytes 0-29/29"'
ex
Are you going to call a separate vote on these Dave?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> >>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
> >>>
> Hello,
>
> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second
> round.
>
> We en
>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
>>>
Hello,
I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second
round.
We encourage the whole community to download and test these
release artifacts so that any critical issues can be resolved be
I should clarify that I didn't mean "ignore", but a test on virtual
machines, of unknown provenance, that are merely "similar" is enough
to make me very suspicious of any benchmark. If anyone wanted to
perform a more rigorous and diligent test (like, say, *only* changing
the couchdb source code bet
sorry Noah, I'm in debug mode today so I don't care to start mucking with my
stack, recompiling erlang, etc...
I did try using that build repeatedly and it crashes all the time. I find it
very odd and I had seen those before as I said on my older macbook.
I do see the hangs Jan describes in th
+1
(checks passed on Arch Linux 3.2.6 64bit, R14B04, Spidermonkey 1.8.5)
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 23:39 , Brian Mitchell wrote:
> Same result as last vote on OS X 10.7.3 using Erlang OTP R15B and
> spidermonkey 1.8.5 . `make check` hangs on 076-file-compression.t and passes
> in th
On Feb 23, 2012, at 19:47 , Filipe David Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>>>
>>> We encourage the whole
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>>
>> We encourage the whole community to download and test these
>> release artifacts so that any
Can someone convince me this bus error stuff and segfaults is not a
blocking issue.
Bob tells me that he's followed the steps above and he's still experiencing
the issues.
Bob, you did follow the steps to install your own SSL right?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On F
On Feb 23, 2012, at 00:28 , Noah Slater wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
>
> 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.
Bob,
When I was suffering this, I would get bus errors or segmentation faults at
random. They are non-deterministic, as far as I can tell. As I said at the
start of this thread, I got a segfault on my first run through, and not my
second or third.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Bob Dionne wrote
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> More than likely this is the SSL issue that Erlang has had issues
> with. Perhaps its time that I go in and see if I can't patch Erlang to
> use the newer OS X functions. Filipe had more details but IIRC the fix
> was basically to compile your o
omitted to say this was R14B04, sorry.
On 23 February 2012 11:33, Robert Newson wrote:
> +1
>
> md5, sha, sig verified.
> make check passes.
> futon fully passes in FF 10.0. fully passes in Chrome 17 (except
> attachment_ranges).
>
> OS X 10.7.3, spidermonkey 1.8.5, icu 4.8.1.1.
>
> B.
>
> On 23
+1
md5, sha, sig verified.
make check passes.
futon fully passes in FF 10.0. fully passes in Chrome 17 (except
attachment_ranges).
OS X 10.7.3, spidermonkey 1.8.5, icu 4.8.1.1.
B.
On 23 February 2012 04:39, Brian Mitchell wrote:
> Same result as last vote on OS X 10.7.3 using Erlang OTP R15B a
Same result as last vote on OS X 10.7.3 using Erlang OTP R15B and spidermonkey
1.8.5 . `make check` hangs on 076-file-compression.t and passes in the browser
as long as I'm in private browsing mode or have the cache disabled. I'll do a
test on Linux tomorrow with R14B04 before I +1.
Brian.
O
perhaps, oddly if I try it without running make distcheck first I get a
different error:
Segmentation fault: 11
dependencies are fun
On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:51 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> More than likely this is the SSL issue that Erlang has had issues
> with. Perhaps its time that I go in and see i
More than likely this is the SSL issue that Erlang has had issues
with. Perhaps its time that I go in and see if I can't patch Erlang to
use the newer OS X functions. Filipe had more details but IIRC the fix
was basically to compile your own SSL and get Erlang to link against
that.
On Wed, Feb 22,
I've been doing that all along, master branch, 1.0.x, any source build is fine.
I saw these occasionally before on the Mackbook Pro, this is the first one I've
seen on the MBA
It is odd that I'm only seeing it on this build, the only diff being I hardly
ever run make distcheck. I'll try it with
Could you try again a few times maybe, try testing the source directly from
your checkout?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Bob Dionne
wrote:
> I've seen this page before Noah, and something like these Bus errors. I
> think it might be the use of R15B
>
> What's odd is that I don't have any prob
I've seen this page before Noah, and something like these Bus errors. I think
it might be the use of R15B
What's odd is that I don't have any problems withe the 1.2 branch, or any
branch for that matter
On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Can you try this and report back please:
Can you try this and report back please:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Troubleshooting#Segmentation_faults_and_bus_errors
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Bob Dionne
wrote:
> make distcheck ran ok
>
> server keeps crashing with:
>
> Bus error: 10
>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater wr
make distcheck ran ok
server keeps crashing with:
Bus error: 10
On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I might add that I got a segfault on the first try with the test suite, but
> was unable to reproduce it with two further runs. I would appreciate some
> feedback on this to assure
I might add that I got a segfault on the first try with the test suite, but
was unable to reproduce it with two further runs. I would appreciate some
feedback on this to assure me that it's nothing to worry about.
Hello,
I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, second round.
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, so get stuck in!
We
81 matches
Mail list logo
