On Mar 2, 2012, at 17:02 , Noah Slater wrote:
> I think we should, at a minimum:
>
> * Abort this round
> * Land the R15B patch
> * Land COUCHDB-1426 (which seems easy)
> * Start round three
>
> I think we should try to:
>
> * Try to land COUCHDB-1424
> * Get clarification on the performance issues
>
> For these last two items, I think we should impose a time limit. Let's say
> a week.
>
> I think we should also form some teams, to see if we can do some sprints to
> get these issues fixed.
Sounds like a plan, let's go!
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 16:47 , Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 16:29, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Proposed Action:
>>>>
>>>> I'd propose to release 1.2.0 as-is with the following points mentioned
>>>> in the release notes (the exact wording of which is to be done):
>>>>
>>>> 1. Note that this release is incompatible with Erlang R15B. A patch is
>>>> available at [LINK to DIFF]; it will appear in Apache CouchDB 1.2.1.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Also note that there are some reports of a performance regression in
>>>> view building. While initial and ad-hoc tests showed an improvement in
>>>> most cases, we'd like to ask our users to report any significant
>>>> differences to the Apache CouchDB 1.1.1 release.
>>>
>>> While I am usually cheering on the release process, taken together it
>>> seems more prudent to abort this round, take the R15B driver and the
>>> 142{4,6} patches and then starting a new round.
>>
>> I'd agree if 142{4,6} were decided tickets, but they are still ongoing
>> and potentially, in the 24-case especially, for a while.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
