Thanks! Basically, after we ship 1.3, I want to set up a release cadence and create a 1.4 release branch, and only allow things into it that follow a merge procedure.
Take a look at these: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Roadmap_Process http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Merge_Procedure There are a few @@ notes I put on there for Bob. Perhaps you can take a look? If you wanna help me get something like this set up, that's awesome! On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Octavian Damiean <[email protected]>wrote: > I can recommend "Version Control with Git" from O'Reilly (ISBN-13: > 978-1449316389). > > If Paul or Bob are not reachable for some reason don't hesitate to contact > me too. :) > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am full time on Apache at the moment, split between CouchDB docs and > > CloudStack. Agree with everything I've seen in this thread, especially > the > > scope of what's included in 1.3. > > > > I have one thing to add. I think, after this release, we should adopt the > > release cadence and merge procedure that we came up with in Dublin, that > > has been proposed to the list before. (This ties into Bob's suggestion to > > use 1.3 as the stable base on which to start merging in all the forks.) > > It's not really had much discussion since then. Only problem is that I > need > > someone to lend a hand with the Git side of things. So I'm looking for > > someone to join me in some release team activity to get things properly > set > > up and communicated out to the community. (Looking at you Paul, Bob. One > of > > you, don't need both.) > > > > So, who wants to buddy up with me to get this done, post-1.3? Don't all > > step forward at once. > > > > (I'm planning to buy a book on Git. I'm fed up of being so clueless...) > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Oct 3, 2012 10:48 PM, "Dave Cottlehuber" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 October 2012 21:41, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Only other thing I'd add is that we talked about importing Jiffy. > > > > > > > > Good, I'd be up for that. Um did you find (in cloudant land) that it > > > > handled parsing large docs better? The current ejson struggles > > > > sometimes I think. Better would mean without spitting the dummy > > > > completely. > > > > > > > > A+ > > > > Dave > > > We arw using jiffy in rcouch. It solves some errors too. It is also > > faster > > > on large docs, On thing I'm not sure with using a nif here is how it > > > behaves with dbs containing obky relatively larges docs? If it blocks > the > > > scheduling too much or not. > > > > > > Maybe cloudant can answer here? > > > > > > benoît > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > NS > > > -- NS
