On 22 Sep 2009, at 06:50, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
I think I see where this is coming from, but rather see it
perceived that
bugfix updates to a stable branch should happen in a timely manner.
We can't
hold back releases forever and we s
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> I think I see where this is coming from, but rather see it perceived that
> bugfix updates to a stable branch should happen in a timely manner. We can't
> hold back releases forever and we should demonstrate that we can release
> 0.10.1 quic
On 21.09.2009, at 06:08, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Chris Anderson
That's the sort of thing that'd get backported for 0.10.1 anyway,
so I
don't think it's a blocker. Also, probably a fairly easy patch.
Chris
Well it's really annoying to have such error in log
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Chris Anderson
That's the sort of thing that'd get backported for 0.10.1 anyway,
so I
don't think it's a blocker. Also, probably a fairly easy patch.
Chris
Well it's really annoying to have such error in
On Sep 20, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Noah Slater
wrote:
Hey,
I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all
stand. This is
my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do
we all feel
ready to prepare a
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:57:03AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>> I updated all of the config files for the etap tests to include an ASF
>> license header. As per [1] it looks like we should do the same for
>> default.ini.tpl.in and local.ini.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:57:03AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> I updated all of the config files for the etap tests to include an ASF
> license header. As per [1] it looks like we should do the same for
> default.ini.tpl.in and local.ini.
No, as previously discussed, I do not want to do this.
Than
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Probably should not have ventured any opinion on a resolution since I had
> just scanned the thread and hadn't had any time to investigate it myself.
> However, it did seem to suggest a possible means of abuse and didn't seem to
> have a resolu
Probably should not have ventured any opinion on a resolution since I had
just scanned the thread and hadn't had any time to investigate it myself.
However, it did seem to suggest a possible means of abuse and didn't seem to
have a resolution at the moment.
Doing a quick test with IE and FF, showe
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all stand.
>> This is
>> my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do we all
>> feel
>> ready
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:53:09PM -0500, Curt Arnold wrote:
>> test/etap/041-uuid-gen-seq.ini
>> test/etap/041-uuid-gen-utc.ini
>> test/etap/121-stats-aggregates.ini
>>
>> do not have license notices and are not listed in license.skip. I'm
>
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:53:09PM -0500, Curt Arnold wrote:
> test/etap/041-uuid-gen-seq.ini
> test/etap/041-uuid-gen-utc.ini
> test/etap/121-stats-aggregates.ini
>
> do not have license notices and are not listed in license.skip. I'm
> assuming that you can feed license.skip into RAT with some o
On Sep 20, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Hey,
I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all
stand. This is
my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do
we all feel
ready to prepare and vote on the 0.10 release now?
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater,
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Chris Anderson
> That's the sort of thing that'd get backported for 0.10.1 anyway, so I
> don't think it's a blocker. Also, probably a fairly easy patch.
>
> Chris
>
Well it's really annoying to have such error in logs when you are in
production. I've also updated
On Sep 20, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Hey,
I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all
stand. This is
my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do
we all feel
ready to prepare and vote on the 0.10 release now?
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater,
On Sep 20, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
That's the sort of thing that'd get backported for 0.10.1 anyway, so I
don't think it's a blocker. Also, probably a fairly easy patch.
Chris
COUCHDB-345 seemed to get no attention in the last call for objections
(other than the fix to a
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all stand. This
>> is
>> my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do we all
>> feel
>>
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all stand. This
> is
> my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do we all
> feel
> ready to prepare and vote on the 0.10 release now?
>
> Thanks,
>
Hey,
I've been following the first thread, but am unsure where we all stand. This is
my second call for objections following our previous discussion. Do we all feel
ready to prepare and vote on the 0.10 release now?
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
I'm not sure how to interpret that statement. I'd like to
interpret as an
willingness to consider for configurable headers.
Absolutely! Its on my whiteboard. Configurable headers are an
excellent solution here because they're a generic feature
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Sorry about the bad quoting, somehow the message evaded my email client.
>
> Paul Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not really concerned with major user agents in terms of headers we
>> add. Most of those should be configured to do the right thing 99%
Sorry about the bad quoting, somehow the message evaded my email client.
Paul Davis wrote:
I'm not really concerned with major user agents in terms of headers
we add. Most of those should be configured to do the right thing 99%
of the time regardless. The question is what would I do if I
Noah,
Blocker fixed. Apologies for holding you back a day.
Paul
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
>>
>> I would like to collect any objections now before I
On 16 Sep 2009, at 14:15, Curt Arnold wrote:
Wrote Jason Davies
Interesting, why did it affect OAuth? OAuth shouldn't care about
what's in the request body as it only operates on the request
headers. Thanks, -- Jason Davies
Sorry, just the related tests fail (and apparently for good ca
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of browser support, the first question should always be
>> weather we can avoid hacks specific to a user agent. Unless you can
>> show that there's a case where its absolutely i
Wrote Jason Davies
Interesting, why did it affect OAuth? OAuth shouldn't care about
what's in the request body as it only operates on the request
headers. Thanks, -- Jason Davies
Sorry, just the related tests fail (and apparently for good cause).
Adam Kocoloski commented on COUCHDB-345:
Hey Curt,
On 16.09.2009, at 07:38, Curt Arnold wrote:
The spec appears to be walking a fine line with respecting behavior
of some HTTP 1.0 caches that treated expires in the past as
equivalent to no-cache. See section 14.9.3, where HTTP 1.1 caches
are instructed to assume no-cache if they
On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
Regardless of browser support, the first question should always be
weather we can avoid hacks specific to a user agent. Unless you can
show that there's a case where its absolutely impossible for a
significant user agent to configure itself to wor
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Lenz wrote:
>>
>> This is a somewhat misleading description; it's not the lack of an Expires
>> header on CouchDB responses that results in incorrect caching, it's a
>> (really ugly) bug in the XMLHtt
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Lenz wrote:
>>
>> This is a somewhat misleading description; it's not the lack of an Expires
>> header on CouchDB responses that results in incorrect caching, it's a
>> (really ugly) bug in the XMLHttp
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Lenz wrote:
This is a somewhat misleading description; it's not the lack of an
Expires header on CouchDB responses that results in incorrect
caching, it's a (really ugly) bug in the XMLHttpRequest
implementation of IE6 that does this. As far as I kno
On 16 Sep 2009, at 00:30, Christopher Lenz wrote:
On 15.09.2009, at 16:02, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
I'd really like t
On 15.09.2009, at 16:02, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
I'd really like to see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-25
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Volker Mische wrote:
> Chris Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Scott Shumaker wrote:
>>> Is there a replacement for all_docs_by_seq?
>>>
>>
>> all_docs_by_seq will be in 0.10, but deprecated.
>>
>> most of it's functionality is available on the
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
>
> I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the motions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>
Noah,
I've made a 504 a blocker for
Chris Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Scott Shumaker wrote:
>> Is there a replacement for all_docs_by_seq?
>>
>
> all_docs_by_seq will be in 0.10, but deprecated.
>
> most of it's functionality is available on the 0.10 _changes feed but
> all of it's functionality will be mov
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
>
> I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the motions.
>
This morning I reopened
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-449 by committing a
default co
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Scott Shumaker wrote:
> Is there a replacement for all_docs_by_seq?
>
all_docs_by_seq will be in 0.10, but deprecated.
most of it's functionality is available on the 0.10 _changes feed but
all of it's functionality will be moved to _changes for 0.11
> On Tue, S
Is there a replacement for all_docs_by_seq?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Paul Joseph Davis
wrote:
> Afaik all nspr builds are threadsafe or at least default to it. I might be
> assuming too much of the SM build system but one would hope it'd detect an
> incompatible nspr.
>
>
>
> On Sep 15,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Paul Joseph Davis
wrote:
> Afaik all nspr builds are threadsafe or at least default to it. I might be
> assuming too much of the SM build system but one would hope it'd detect an
> incompatible nspr.
>
Well I remembr time where the problem was exactly this one with
Afaik all nspr builds are threadsafe or at least default to it. I
might be assuming too much of the SM build system but one would hope
it'd detect an incompatible nspr.
On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Benoit Chesneau
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Paul Davis > wrote:
This spe
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> This specifically affects threadsafe builds of spidermonkey.
if spidermonkey rely on external nspr, nspr should be compiled
threadsafe too. It could be the problem.
- benoît
> CouchDB built fine for me without this patch on Snow Leopard,
> but I wouldn't object merging this in. Noah, I'd leave the decision
> for you as you're the one with the autofu :)
This specifically affects threadsafe builds of spidermonkey. Like Noah
said when I found it, it'd be nice to figure o
On 15 Sep 2009, at 15:02, Curt Arnold wrote:
COUCHDB-345 prevents misencoded documents from being inserted in the
database after which they result in catastrophic failures of views.
The current patch could be optimized to only call
xmerl_ucs:from_utf8 if there is a byte value of 0x80 or ab
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Hey,
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
I'd really like to see http://issues.apache.org/jir
On 15 Sep 2009, at 15:26, Trevor Turk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater
wrote:
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
I'm not sure that this is a blocker, but I was wondering if t
Hi Trevor,
On 15 Sep 2009, at 15:26, Trevor Turk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater
wrote:
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
I'm not sure that this is a blocker, but I was won
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
>
> I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the motions.
I'm not sure that this is a blocker, but I was wondering if the
following fix would be in the 0.10 release, as
On 15 Sep 2009, at 14:38, Noah Slater wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:05:19PM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
pending resolution of #497, +1 for me.
Will someone please reply to this thread when this is fixed then
please?
Ping. r815309.
Cheers
Jan
--
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:05:19PM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> pending resolution of #497, +1 for me.
Will someone please reply to this thread when this is fixed then please?
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
>
> I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the motions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>
pending resolution of #497, +1 for m
sounds good, assuming the deprecation of _all_docs_by_seq is called
out quite clearly (its removal on trunk breaks couchdb-lucene so I've
added a note to my README).
B.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Hi Noah.
>
> thanks for taking the time!
>
> On 15 Sep 2009, at 12:00,
Hi Noah.
thanks for taking the time!
On 15 Sep 2009, at 12:00, Noah Slater wrote:
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the
motions.
No objections from me.
Cheers
Jan
--
Hey,
I plan on cutting the 0.10 release for a vote today.
I would like to collect any objections now before I go through the motions.
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
54 matches
Mail list logo
