> On 21. Jänner 2014 at 10:20:58, Paul Davis (paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com) > wrote: > ... > As to bigcouch/rcouch conflicts its something we'll need to > figure out > for sure. I don't really see much point in trying to create > bigcouch/rcouch specific branches for the initial import though. > I did > include bigcouch merge related patches on both of couch and > couch_replicator cause I was worried about the history extraction. > > The "proper" approach I think is to go back and reset each repo > to the > equivalent commit pointed at by the merge-rebase-target tag > and then > we should create branches 1843-feature-bigcouch and 1994-merge-rcouch > branches in each repo where we have conflicts. Once that's done > we can > focus on the actual conflicts to see where we need to work on merging > actual code changes. The important part here is to have a common > history for each sub-repo we agree on that is the initial import > and > then we can focus on the merge work at hand. > > For the upstream repos I need to add some more work to those to > reflect changes that we've made since march of this year when > we > started the bigcouch merge. I definitely agree that we should > be > pushing our changes upstream so that these are as close to raw > mirrors > as possible. The ibrowse and mochiweb branches were direct from > upstream repos and I think I pulled oauth from the rcouch repo. > The > mochiweb commit was super old but ibrowse was relatively close. > I know > we've changed things here recently and we'll want to get as much > of > that upstream as possible. > > I'm going to be digging back into this work at the end of the week > or > early next week. Let me know if you find anything else that needs > to > be addressed. >
WRT to Mochiweb, moving to a later upstream requires us to drop < R15B compatibility I think. rcouch is ok with current Erlang, what is your opinion wrt to bigcouch? -- Dave Cottlehuber Sent from my PDP11
