On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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? >> > > I think you can follow these instruction to back out the revisions in > which your backport merges were committed to 0.9.x > > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.html#svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.undo > > Hope that helps! > > Chris > > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchrisa.net > http://couch.io >
Chris, Awesome. I'll go through what I backported and un-backport (forward port?) them tonight. Also, how did I ever like svn? Paul
