I'd like to second COUCHDB-780. :D
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-780 relates to windows file
> issues as well as fixing a source of surprising unresponsiveness with big
> databases (finishing compaction, deleting, etc). This
Glad to have helped!
On 17 Jun 2010, at 18:01, Randall Leeds wrote:
> Oh! So now I feel silly. I'm quite sorry for the noise, Noah. You have found
> the source of my confusion. Somehow I didn't really know the distinction
> between shell variables and environment variables[1]. No wonder I was
> f
Oh! So now I feel silly. I'm quite sorry for the noise, Noah. You have found
the source of my confusion. Somehow I didn't really know the distinction
between shell variables and environment variables[1]. No wonder I was
frustrated trying to follow you...
The su man page didn't help with its -m fla
On 17 Jun 2010, at 01:57, Randall Leeds wrote:
> Okay. My issue here stems from the fact that I don't consider using more
> than 1024 ports a specialist use case deserving of a custom wrapper. Having
> fifty replications with default options already goes beyond this limit.
>
> COUCHDB_OPTIONS co
Okay. My issue here stems from the fact that I don't consider using more
than 1024 ports a specialist use case deserving of a custom wrapper. Having
fifty replications with default options already goes beyond this limit.
COUCHDB_OPTIONS could be used for command line flags with the change I
propos
On 17 Jun 2010, at 01:07, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:52, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2010, at 23:59, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>
>>> I'd really like to sort out the situation with resource limits.
>>>
>>> My patch to allow setting a larger mochiweb connection limit w
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:52, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 16 Jun 2010, at 23:59, Randall Leeds wrote:
>
>> I'd really like to sort out the situation with resource limits.
>>
>> My patch to allow setting a larger mochiweb connection limit was
>> committed (COUCHDB-705), but currently there's no easy
On 16 Jun 2010, at 23:59, Randall Leeds wrote:
> I'd really like to sort out the situation with resource limits.
>
> My patch to allow setting a larger mochiweb connection limit was
> committed (COUCHDB-705), but currently there's no easy user story for
> increasing things like ERL_MAX_PORTS. I'
I'd really like to sort out the situation with resource limits.
My patch to allow setting a larger mochiweb connection limit was
committed (COUCHDB-705), but currently there's no easy user story for
increasing things like ERL_MAX_PORTS. I'd also be nice if we could
allow people to pass arbitrary f
+1 on #802. (I've already been bitten this)
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Jason Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 22:22, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> Which other issues or patches that are not in 0.11.x yet do
>> you think need to be addressed before we branch 1.0? I'd
>> like to hear from every
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 22:22, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Which other issues or patches that are not in 0.11.x yet do
> you think need to be addressed before we branch 1.0? I'd
> like to hear from everybody here, especially the
> non-committers.
I would love to see COUCHDB-802 go in. IMO it would be
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-780 relates to windows file
issues as well as fixing a source of surprising unresponsiveness with big
databases (finishing compaction, deleting, etc). This patch is the only one
I'd really like to wrap up for 1.0.
On Jun 15, 2010 9:16 AM, "Juhani Ränki
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Which other issues or patches that are not in 0.11.x yet do
> you think need to be addressed before we branch 1.0? I'd
> like to hear from everybody here, especially the
> non-committers.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
Windows file handling problems
#2 issue of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-793
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 14 Jun 2010, at 23:18, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> >> To make sure I understand... did we agree to branch 1.0 from trunk?
> >
> > Nope, we agreed to cut 1.0 from 0.11.x. 0.11.x w
On 14 Jun 2010, at 23:18, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> To make sure I understand... did we agree to branch 1.0 from trunk?
>
> Nope, we agreed to cut 1.0 from 0.11.x. 0.11.x was in disarray for a brief
> time but my latest commits are supposed to have fixed that. I think we should
> go ahead and bra
On 14 Jun 2010, at 19:07, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The 0.11 branch still feels weird to me. I thought commits on release
>> branches were supposed to be bugfixes only. With 0.11.x the criteria seem
>> to be
>>
>> 1) bugfixes
On Jun 13, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>
>
> The 0.11 branch still feels weird to me. I thought commits on release
> branches were supposed to be bugfixes only. With 0.11.x the criteria seem to
> be
>
> 1) bugfixes
> 2) anything committed to trunk by Damien
> 3) anything else n
Thanks all for the reviews!
I applied my monster-fix branch into branches/0.11.x now. Boy do I love me some
git :)
Cheers
Jan
--
On 14 Jun 2010, at 00:24, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Jun 2010, at 23:45, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>
On Jun 13, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2010, at 23:45, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>
>>> I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
>>> committed a number of things into trunk rela
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2010, at 23:45, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>
>>> I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
>>> committed a number of things into trunk relat
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2010, at 23:45, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>
>>> I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
>>> committed a number of things into trunk rela
On 5 Jun 2010, at 23:45, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>
>> I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
>> committed a number of things into trunk related to JIRA tickets with a Fix
>> Version of 1.1.
>>
>
> I'
On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
> committed a number of things into trunk related to JIRA tickets with a Fix
> Version of 1.1.
>
I've been reviewing the diff between trunk and 0.11.x -- I can't fi
I've only been merging bugfixes into 0.11.x for a long time now. I think I
committed a number of things into trunk related to JIRA tickets with a Fix
Version of 1.1.
On Jun 3, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
> I was wrong, the problem I'm facing are previous commits that weren't merged
>
I was wrong, the problem I'm facing are previous commits that weren't merged
into 0.11.x branch.
Does anyone know of any commits that _shouldn't_ be merged from trunk to 0.11.x?
-Damien
On Jun 3, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
> When developing code and fixes for the 0.11.x branch, it sh
When developing code and fixes for the 0.11.x branch, it should be first
checked into trunk,then merged into 0.11.x branch. Right now I'm dealing as a I
merge code from trunk to the branch, I'm dealing with merge conflicts in the
attachment encoding code, which should have been in trunk all alon
26 matches
Mail list logo
