Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-04 Thread Dave Cottlehuber
On 4 October 2012 12:43, Noah Slater wrote: > I am full time on Apache at the moment, split between CouchDB docs and > CloudStack. Agree with everything I've seen in this thread, especially the > scope of what's included in 1.3. > > I have one thing to add. I think, after this release, we should a

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-04 Thread Robert Newson
My ability to respond is low right now due to being on holiday but am psyched to see plans forming. One task worth a day of someone's time is to check that the news/changes file includes description of every fix since 1.2. Should be pretty good but probably isn't complete. I recall an important fi

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-04 Thread Noah Slater
Thanks! Basically, after we ship 1.3, I want to set up a release cadence and create a 1.4 release branch, and only allow things into it that follow a merge procedure. Take a look at these: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Roadmap_Process http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Merge_Procedure There are a

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-04 Thread Octavian Damiean
I can recommend "Version Control with Git" from O'Reilly (ISBN-13: 978-1449316389). If Paul or Bob are not reachable for some reason don't hesitate to contact me too. :) On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > I am full time on Apache at the moment, split between CouchDB docs and

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-04 Thread Noah Slater
I am full time on Apache at the moment, split between CouchDB docs and CloudStack. Agree with everything I've seen in this thread, especially the scope of what's included in 1.3. I have one thing to add. I think, after this release, we should adopt the release cadence and merge procedure that we c

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Oct 3, 2012 10:48 PM, "Dave Cottlehuber" wrote: > > On 3 October 2012 21:41, Paul Davis wrote: > > > Only other thing I'd add is that we talked about importing Jiffy. > > Good, I'd be up for that. Um did you find (in cloudant land) that it > handled parsing large docs better? The current ejson

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Paul Davis
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > On 3 October 2012 21:41, Paul Davis wrote: > >> Only other thing I'd add is that we talked about importing Jiffy. > > Good, I'd be up for that. Um did you find (in cloudant land) that it > handled parsing large docs better? The current ejs

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Dave Cottlehuber
On 3 October 2012 21:41, Paul Davis wrote: > Only other thing I'd add is that we talked about importing Jiffy. Good, I'd be up for that. Um did you find (in cloudant land) that it handled parsing large docs better? The current ejson struggles sometimes I think. Better would mean without spitting

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Dave Cottlehuber
On 3 October 2012 20:31, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Robert Newson wrote: >> imo, 1.3 should be bug fixes, docs and CORS, the latter being the most >> at-risk. > > There's also a bunch of other stuff already in the tree, right? I > think there was a new view processo

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Paul Davis
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Robert Newson wrote: >> imo, 1.3 should be bug fixes, docs and CORS, the latter being the most >> at-risk. > > There's also a bunch of other stuff already in the tree, right? I > think there was a new view p

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Robert Newson wrote: > imo, 1.3 should be bug fixes, docs and CORS, the latter being the most > at-risk. There's also a bunch of other stuff already in the tree, right? I think there was a new view processor or something, and EventSource support for changes feeds?

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Robert Newson
Fwiw, I took a swing at resolving critical issues for a 1.3 release a few weeks ago. Fixed a few things. I'd definitely encourage others to dig in again. imo, 1.3 should be bug fixes, docs and CORS, the latter being the most at-risk. I'd really like 1.3 to be a solid release that we can use as th

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-03 Thread Randall Leeds
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> I could do a jira review of outstanding tickets, if that's going to help. Couldn't hurt. I would take up blockers if we have any. Dustin, if you have any debug info to provide, or issues open for the replication problems you see, I will fi

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-02 Thread Benoit Chesneau
On Oct 3, 2012 12:03 AM, "Dave Cottlehuber" wrote: > > I don't recall a thread about this, so let's get cracking. > > I think there's been general agreement, just not written down, to: > > - Release 1.3.0 soon before embarking on merging ALL THE FORKS > - Clean up of a few critical things on maste

Re: 1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-02 Thread Dustin Sallings
On Oct 2, 2012, at 15:03, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > I've got 1 blocker, nuke_dir doesn't work on windows. > > Anybody else? I think I've reported this a bit back, but I'm still having the same two problems in replication: 1. Altogether stops working ~daily. 2. Occasi

1.3.0 discussion

2012-10-02 Thread Dave Cottlehuber
I don't recall a thread about this, so let's get cracking. I think there's been general agreement, just not written down, to: - Release 1.3.0 soon before embarking on merging ALL THE FORKS - Clean up of a few critical things on master before branching a 1.3.x - get the documentation into 1.3. I