+1
On 07 May 2013, at 11:15 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
(Note: the work was valuable any how, because master now has an accurate
record of history.)
On 7 May 2013 20:01, Dave Cottlehuber d...@jsonified.com wrote:
On 7 May 2013 20:34, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1789?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13651775#comment-13651775
]
Robert Newson commented on COUCHDB-1789:
I'm skeptical that a 4GB json blob will
Mukund P created COUCHDB-1790:
-
Summary: I am unable to start stop couchdb service
Key: COUCHDB-1790
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1790
Project: CouchDB
Issue Type:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1790?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13651903#comment-13651903
]
Garren Smith commented on COUCHDB-1790:
---
Hi, we need more details to be able to
Hey Marcus, kleks looks really great. You should post it on the users list
to let a wider community know about it.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Markus Ochel mar...@markuso.com wrote:
Hi
I am following the instructions in the CouchDB in the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1789?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13652008#comment-13652008
]
Arpit commented on COUCHDB-1789:
Ok. But I assume a blob of a few Megs (4Mb) sould be
+1
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:02:09PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
+1
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Russell Branca chewbra...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Very excited to see this! Great work!
-Russell
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote:
FYI: A
I don't know what the Apache stance is on things, but I'm -1 on deleting
the 1.2.x branch. n and n-1 support is fairly common, unless you want
to consdier n == HEAD and n-1 == 1.3.x.
Otherwise +1.
-Joan
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:34:14PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
Devs,
We're switching over
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 12:58:44PM -0700, Jens Alfke wrote:
I agree; it's pretty unpleasant to use. I've been contributing to it
intermittently for over a year but it's always a chore.
+1
[snip]
We use Confluence internally at Couchbase, but in practice people don't seem
very happy with
Joan,
1.2.x is forwards-compatible with 1.3.x, so there is no reason to keep it
around.
On 8 May 2013 18:06, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
I don't know what the Apache stance is on things, but I'm -1 on deleting
the 1.2.x branch. n and n-1 support is fairly common, unless you want
to
*Noodles a little while longer...*
In fact, I am not even sure why we recently did that 1.2.2 release.
Unfortunately, I think we got into the habit of thinking that minor version
numbers mean breaking changes. Because, in the past, this has sometimes
been the case. For those people who wanted
I'm +1 on 1.3.0 being the upgrade back for 1.2.anything in general.
If we stick with semver this is the expected path.
On 8 May 2013 18:26, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
*Noodles a little while longer...*
In fact, I am not even sure why we recently did that 1.2.2 release.
OK, in that case when there's a 2.0 ready to go, we'd also support
1.latest for (some indefinite but non-zero period of time).
You've convinced me, +1!
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:33:43PM +0100, Robert Newson wrote:
I'm +1 on 1.3.0 being the upgrade back for 1.2.anything in general.
If we
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1073?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13652205#comment-13652205
]
Ryan Ramage commented on COUCHDB-1073:
--
Ok, ran into this issue...maybe unrelated,
Joan, agreed! We'd want to support the 1.x line for 12 months, I think.
On 8 May 2013 19:25, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
OK, in that case when there's a 2.0 ready to go, we'd also support
1.latest for (some indefinite but non-zero period of time).
You've convinced me, +1!
On Wed,
+1
On 08 May 2013, at 7:04 PM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:02:09PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
+1
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Russell Branca chewbra...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Very excited to see this! Great work!
-Russell
On Tue, May
Members present: rnewson, Kxepal
Meeting summary:
1. Preface
2. teh merge
a. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@couchdb.apache.org/msg25522.html
(Kxepal, 19:11:42)
b. everyone vote at bigcouch merge tread or/and leave your
thoughts about there (Kxepal,
+1
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Garren Smith gar...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On 08 May 2013, at 7:04 PM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:02:09PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
+1
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Russell Branca
+1
I think lazy consensus is valuable, but I think it's antithetical to [DISCUSS].
If something should be discussed, it should be open for some time.
I think the sensible way to do things would be to have discussion open
for a week or two and then a lazy consensus email summarizing the
+1
On 05/07/2013 01:34 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
Hi All,
I propose to merge in the following work,
https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/nebraska-merge-candidate to
the official Apache CouchDB repository to a new branch (i.e, *not*
master). Once there, the full CouchDB developer community can
+1
On 05/07/2013 11:34 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Devs,
We're switching over to time-based releases.
I took a moment to review our existing release branches today, and I have
prepared a list of recommendations for you. Please review these and give me
feedback.
By drop support I mean make official
On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
Lazy consensus give this false idea that because no-one objected in
time then it's OK to process.
This is not a false idea. This principal sites at the very core of how we
do things at Apache.
That could be true if the
+1
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Wendall Cada wenda...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On 05/07/2013 01:34 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
Hi All,
I propose to merge in the following work,
+1
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Wendall Cada wenda...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On 05/07/2013 11:34 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Devs,
We're switching over to time-based releases.
I took a moment to review our existing release branches today, and I have
prepared a list of recommendations for
On 9 May 2013 01:02, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I would be happy to use the subject tag PROPOSAL when lazy consensus is
being used, to separate these threads out from general DISCUSS threads.
Please note, however, that in my mental model of how Apache works, a
DISCUSS thread *is*
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 9 May 2013 01:02, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I would be happy to use the subject tag PROPOSAL when lazy consensus is
being used, to separate these threads out from general DISCUSS threads.
Please note,
26 matches
Mail list logo
