On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2009, at 19:45, Paul Davis wrote: > >> Is there a reason to not just take current trunk and tag it as 0.9.1? >> I'd be +1 for making some sort of release tarball with Jan's listed >> commits. > > I'm not proposing cutting a release just yet, just making sure we > define which commits go into the 0.9.x tree. I'd -1 using trunk to > cut 0.9.1; just for good practice. We do have the 0.9.x branch > and with the practice of "backporting" we make sure that we > don't step on each other in two branches and accidentally > commit stuff to the "stable" branch that is only meant for > "unstable" trunk. Right now it seems overkill but past > experience has shown that this is a good practice to keep > up. > > I'd rather examine each commit then just cutting from trunk > now. For example: > > refactor: extract method from doc_flush_binaries. add with_stream/2 to > handle automatically opening and closing binary streams: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=764257&view=rev seems a good > candidate to not go into 0.9.1 >
Maybe... I'd argue it can go in as it doesn't change behavior, just makes the code a little more readable. But then again, maybe I introduced a bug (hope not)... Anyway, there are a few non-0.9 commits, so now that I read the log I think cherry picking is in order. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > >> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> as I understand trunk is now effectively 0.10-dev. Do we want to >>> maintain the 0.9.x branch and backport some of the bug fixes that >>> go into trunk? (I'd say yes we do.) >>> >>> If yes, I'd like to propose the following commits to be backported: >>> >>> Fixes for leaked file handles, with test: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763858&view=rev >>> (not sure if it is possible with the other changes near that commit) >>> >>> Fix for attachment sparseness bug COUCHDB-220 by giving each attachment >>> it's >>> own stream and calling set_min_buffer instead of ensure_buffer. Also >>> fixed >>> spurious couch_file crash messages by putting the statistics decrement >>> code >>> into a seperate monitoring process: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763816&view=rev >>> (Again, not sure, if it is really possible) >>> >>> Use now_diff instead of statistics(runtime). Closes COUCHDB-316: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=762019&view=rev >>> (Should be simple) >>> >>> And all updates to the README that are not 0.10 specific: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761352&view=rev >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761343&view=rev >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760538&view=rev >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760537&view=rev >>> >>> And I believe Noah had at least one fix for the build >>> system, but I don't know which one. Noah? >>> >>> >>> Any commits I missed? >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >>> >> > > -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io
