On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:47, Christopher Brown wrote:
> Sorry for the hassle. Just wanted to make sure I understood and that
> I'm also following the same process.
Again, the ASF is all about transparency, if there's anything unclear
to anyone here, you shouldn't hesitate to ask for clarification :)
Cheers
Jan
--
> Thanks again!
> Chris
>
> Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:28, Christopher Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Can I ask a process point here?
>>
>> Of course, any time.
>>
>>> I'm seeing people saying "I may have missed a commit" and being asked to
>>> do a clean install to run these tests, which makes me wonder if we are
>>> all testing the same thing. When Noah sends out mail saying "these are
>>> the artifacts to vote on", is everyone ensuring that's exactly what they
>>> are testing? It doesn't appear to be the case.
>>
>> I'm reading this as: Benoit thinks there's a specific cause for his test
>> errors,
>> but he can't remember seeing a commit to code around that cause in the
>> past. Hence "missing a commit" as it not knowing it about.
>>
>> Everybody in this thread must vote on the artefacts that Noah prepared
>> that is the same code for everybody (it comes with a gpg signature,
>> md5 and sha hash and voters should verify they all match).
>>
>> Benoit, if my reading of this is incorrect, please let me know :)
>>
>>
>>> Before you write me off, hear me out. I'm an *avid* consumer of couchdb
>>> in my business today and vote at each release. I want to ensure
>>> quality, and understand the process.
>>
>> When Noah sends out a mail with [VOTE] in the subject he links to a location
>> for a CouchDB tarball that is nominated to be the next CouchDB release.
>>
>> Everybody on dev@ is encouraged to vote on the nominated release.
>>
>> If you have any further questions, let me know :)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for your patience,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 02:44, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:40, Brian Candler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, nobody else seems to have had this problem, it's quite possibly
>>>>>> something to do with my setup, and browser-based tests are fragile
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> Hence I'm not going to vote against the release. It's a 0 from me.
>>>>> Not true, you are the second to report it in this vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any of the developers (Jan?) want to comment on how serious this bug is?
>>>> Brian, Benoit, can you both double check and do a clean-slate installation
>>>> into a new --prefix if you haven't done so?
>>>>
>>>>> ** {{badmatch,{error,eacces}},
>>>>
>>>> From Brian's stacktrace, I'm seeing the eaccess error which suggests that
>>>> CouchDB doesn't have write permissions to local.ini (or local_dev.ini, if
>>>> you run in make dev mode).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>> [Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:00:50 GMT] [info] [<0.113.0>] OS Process
>>>>> #Port<0.1864> Log :: function raised exception (new
>>>>> ReferenceError("map_funs is not defined", "")) with doc._id
>>>>> 8450bfd7a0371f80a9baf032553367f4
>>>>> …
>>>>> [Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:00:50 GMT] [info] [<0.113.0>] OS Process
>>>>> #Port<0.1864> Log :: function raised exception (new
>>>>> ReferenceError("map_results is not defined", "")) with doc._id
>>>>> 8450bfd7a0371f80a9baf032553367f4
>>>> These come from the view server and look like there's a weird condition.
>>>> Chris, maybe you can comment on this?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>
