On 30 May 2011, at 11:11, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 30 May 2011, at 10:50, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 29 May 2011 05:26, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.1.0 release, round 2. >>>> >>>> Thanks Bob & all - that is a *lot* of bugs squashed!! >>>> >>>> md5, sha, etaps all good. >>>> Mac OS X 10.6.7 >>>> NB I needed to do `brew link icu4c` to get couchdb ./configure to work. >>>> ffox passes except for replication {"error": "not_found"}; logs at >>>> http://friendpaste.com/2IS0zh1PjEAmJrgtqWp66u >>>> >>>> Swapping R14B01 in for R14B03 -> replication tests pass again as >>>> discussed on IRC. >>>> >>> >>> using R14B93, and still have the replication error. Tests with safari >>> just block on replication and never end. I'm -1 until that's fixed. >>> Will open/update a ticket with logs. >> >> In case it is unclear, it is R14B03 that introduces this error, 01 >> and 02 are fine. >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> > Does it means 1.1 is supporting <= R14B01 only ? In that case we > should be clear about it in README imo. We actually we say: > > * Erlang OTP (>=R12B5) (http://erlang.org/) > > > Also in this case I will recheck with this version and others. (would > be good if we had a bot doing that)
I don't think we came to any conclusions yet. I agree that we should do so and make the correct change in the README and ./configure version checks. Ideally, we should be compatible with latest releases. Now, 02 introduced a few instabilities that I believe we have worked around, and 03 fixes them on the Erlang side. So while not advisable, we currently support <=02 and 03 is a rather fresh release. I think it'd be worth halting this vote in favour of fixing replication.js with 03, but I'll let Robert make that call. Cheers Jan --
