On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
Sounds good. I'll have to figure out how to un-merge a couple patches to 0.9.x then because I definitely pushed a couple that would break client code relying on some of the different parameters being silently ignored. Anyone have any idea on how one does that in SVN? Paul
