On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > Noah Slater wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 11:57:43PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: >> >>> >>> That said, what keeps us from 0.10? I did contemplate the the jump from >>> 0.9 isn't as big as the jump from 0.8. Though, I would probably say that >>> the jump from 0.8 to 0.9 was fairly delayed. At the moment there are at >>> least three new features: config.d updates, bulk=ok, and the reduce >>> warnings; none of which seem like only a $(REVISON) change. To me that >>> doesn't seem like something to ignore but I would be perfectly happy >>> referring to version numbers via subversion revision so I'm a bit not >>> normal on that front. >>> >> >> Just to be clear, my configuration changes were not merged back. >> >> What changes, specifically, do you think should be pulled from the 0.9.x >> branch? >> >> > > I haven't the slightest cause I have no idea what the guidelines are. >
I'm pretty sure the guidelines are: in the 0.9.x branch, fix bugs, don't change behavior in a way that would break clients. Bad candidates for 0.9.x: the reduce_limit patch I just applied to trunk, changes in query-string validation, totally new features like batch=ok Good candidates for 0.9.x: reduce sparseness in db files, make replication more complete/reliable, fix arbitrary resource limits (like the 100+ open dbs bug) I think that's pretty clear, but don't hesitate to ask if it could be more clear. Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io
