Finally, the review-after-commit approach bothers me, especially at crunch times like this. Can we get a chance to preview and discuss changes while we're trying to push out a release please?
B. On 23 March 2012 13:15, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm also -1 on your revised solution. We go to the trouble of > carefully logging and formatting these errors and then log them at a > level that approximately no one ever runs at (debug is far too noisy > to use in production, for instance). > > B. > > On 23 March 2012 13:14, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >> " Is there a good reason why we don't honor >> the create option in the way I expected?" >> >> Is there a good reason you committed a fix to a release branch without >> testing it? >> >> :) >> >> B. >> >> On 23 March 2012 13:12, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:21, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Release is still blocked as a clean startup now logs spurious errors >>>> (1.1.x and 1.2.x); >>> >>> Filipe had asked me to include a log message there after my logging >>> related commits. I've just committed a change that reduces this to >>> debug level. >>> >>> Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way to request that >>> couch_file create the file if it doesn't exist, but just open it if it >>> does. Instead, we require the overwrite option in order not to bail >>> out. Otherwise, couch_replication_manager and couch_auth_cache could >>> just add the create option when opening these system databases rather >>> than detecting the error themselves and issuing couch_db:create after >>> the failed couch_db:open. Is there a good reason why we don't honor >>> the create option in the way I expected? The only reason I see is so >>> that we can return an error to clients that POST/PUT to create a new >>> database, but specifying the exclusive option to file:open actually >>> addresses this. >>> >>> Anyway, the simple fix (to lower the log level) is committed to both >>> branches. >>> >>>> >>>> Apache CouchDB 1.1.2a3e2280b-git (LogLevel=info) is starting. >>>> [error] [<0.87.0>] Error opening file >>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_users.couch: no such file >>>> or directory >>>> [error] [<0.87.0>] Error opening file >>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_users.couch.compact: no >>>> such file or directory >>>> [error] [<0.100.0>] Error opening file >>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_replicator.couch: no such >>>> file or directory >>>> [error] [<0.100.0>] Error opening file >>>> /Users/robertnewson/Source/couchdb/tmp/lib/_replicator.couch.compact: >>>> no such file or directory >>>> Apache CouchDB has started. Time to relax. >>>> [info] [<0.31.0>] Apache CouchDB has started on http://127.0.0.1:5984/ >>>> >>>> B. >>>> >>>> On 21 March 2012 21:44, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:47, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: >>>>>> This is great! Browser tests too, please! Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Randall Leeds >>>>>> <randall.le...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 13:21, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Have you added the appropriate entries in NEWS and CHANGES? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have just now. Running make check so I can give you the green light. >>>>>>> Would appreciate if anyone else would do the same. >>>>> >>>>> Make check and futon tests pass here. Bob Dionne confirms the same. We >>>>> found one tiny issue that remained with my changes and squashed it. >>>>> Green light from me. >>>>> >>>>> I'm online for several hours if you need me.
