On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jim Klo <[email protected]> wrote: > Do I dare ask what the ETA for 1.2.0 release is?
Hard to tell/estimate. Maybe in a few months. Just follow the mailing lists to be aware. > > - Jim > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also, in 1.2.0 you'll no longer need the hack of editing replication >> checkpoint documents in order to bootstrap replications from a >> particular sequence number. You can simply specify a parameter named >> "since_seq" in replication objects/documents. >> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Filipe David Manana wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Paul Hirst wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Robert Newson [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>> Sent: 24 December 2011 12:46 >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Delete replication history >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe Jim is referring to the replication checkpoint document >>>>>>> (which does indeed include 'historical' information). Jim is also >>>>>>> correct in that the presence of this document will prevent a full >>>>>>> re-replication when the target's validate_doc_update function is >>>>>>> altered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jim, the replication checkpoint document is named in the way: >>>>>>> /dbname/_local/<hash>. You should be able to see this document being >>>>>>> written to in the logs and the <hash> portion is also the value you >>>>>>> get back when POST'ing to _replicate (and the one shown in >>>>>>> _active_tasks). Delete the document in the usual fashion and >>>>>>> replication will do over from the start. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've only ever been able to find the hash value in the log. If it's in >>>>>> _active_tasks where is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> My replication entries in _active_tasks look like >>>>>> >>>>>> ba3959: http://myserver.example:5984/mydb/ -> mydb >>>>>> >>>>>> And I don't believe ba3959 is long enough. Isn't the hash an MD5 of the >>>>>> replication information? >>>>>> >>>>>> If there was a way to get it out of _active_tasks it would be extremely >>>>>> convenient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sophos Limited, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, >>>>>> United Kingdom. >>>>>> Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 991 2418 08. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Currently _active_tasks only reports the first six characters of the >>>>> hash. I'm not opposed to having it report the full hash, especially now >>>>> that the _active_tasks output is semi-structured. >>>> >>>> The branch for the next major release, 1.2.x, already reports the full >>>> id (unlike all current releases which only report the first 6 >>>> characters in _active_tasks). >>> >>> Ah, thanks for the correction Filipe! >> >> >> >> -- >> Filipe David Manana, >> >> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
