asking from a user perspective: would it be possible to configure the uuid and the secret for signing cookies for all nodes with nmo ( https://github.com/apache/couchdb-nmo) or anything else? Not sure if this would raise security issues ...
If yes - we should include it in the docs. On 17 December 2015 at 00:29, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > > So 1) the mango thing is already fixed, 2) I’ve bumped rebar.config to > point to the fix for couch_replicator and 3) this "view-based filtered > replication" isn’t even a thing, the _changes_ field can take > ?filter=_view, this does work in 2.0. > > That leaves remembering to set uuid consistently, we’ll need to cover that > in docs. We have the same issue with the secret value used to sign cookies, > it’s important that all nodes of a cluster have the same value (though > unlike uuid it has to be secret and ~impossible to guess). > > B. > > > > On 14 Dec 2015, at 20:54, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Robert, > > > >> On 12 Dec 2015, at 18:02, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Cloudant has recently deployed a CouchDB 2.0-based build into an > internal environment (it gets real usage but is not yet on our public > clusters) and we’ve found it to be pretty solid. I note a few things that > we saw (they might not all apply to 2.0, we extend and modify the code a > little); > > > > this is outstanding news, thank you! \o/ :) > > > > > >> 1. now that we’re clustered, it’s important to remember to set > [couchdb] uuid to the same value for each node a cluster (and for different > clusters to have different values). At Cloudant all clusters have names, so > we just use that (if you’re familiar with our offering, values like > "meritage", "moonshine", "jenever"). > >> > >> 2. View-based filtered replication seems not to work, probably a simple > oversight in the chttpd layer. > >> > >> 3. Mango was missing the "fields" feature but this has now been ported. > >> > >> 4. It’s important to have the latest version of couch_replicator as the > "rescan" fix is a significant performance difference. > >> > >> We’ll be working on patches for everything we’ve found and continue to > find since we now work directly against the ASF branches, but hopefully > this gives us all some confidence that the 2.0 codebase is in decent shape. > > > > Good finds! Is there an ETA on any of these, or tickets that we can > follow? > > > > > >> I share your disappointment at the js test suite progress, it’s been > over a month and it’s not happened. Cloudant has a different test suite (in > Python) that has given us the confidence to proceed to production > deployment. With my ASF hat on we can’t consider that a factor in the > couchdb release process but it’s comfort nonetheless. > > > > That is definitely good to know, and I share your comfort. Nonetheless, > at least https://github.com/apache/couchdb-chttpd/pull/98 shows that > there are still some things are in 1.x that haven’t made it over to any > other test suite but the JS one yet and are missing from 2.x, I want to > keep this list as short as possible. > > > > > >> If we investigate the above issues, fix what is broken, I think we can > make a beta build even without the test suite. I hope community engagement > will be sufficient to move forward to the real 2.0 release. This has been a > long (looooonnnnnggg) time in the making and I personally very much want to > look back on the 2.0 milestone. > > > > > > I’m on board with this. I’d even be okay with adding the ones you > mention on the CouchDB JIRA as blocking* and then call the initial release > an “alpha”, and point to the JIRA blocking list as “known issues”. > Subsequent releases can be called “beta” as soon as the blocking list is > empty (so using “beta” in the traditional no-known-bugs meaning). > > > > * > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2876?jql=project%20%3D%20COUCHDB%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > Also, who’s volunteering for release master? :) > > > > Best > > Jan > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> B. > >> > >>> On 12 Dec 2015, at 14:40, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hey all, > >>> > >>> where are we on 2.0? > >>> > >>> Who is working on the 2.0 blockers listed on > http://s.apache.org/couchdb-2.0? > >>> > >>> * * * > >>> > >>> I said I wanted the JS test suite to get fully passing before we get a > beta out, but given the meagre response (thanks all who did help!), it > appears foolish to stand firm on this. > >>> > >>> We should keep working on this, but it could be handled during the > beta period under “known issues”. See > https://github.com/apache/couchdb-chttpd/pull/98 for an example of just > two tiny things we accidentally dropped between 1.x and 2.x, and I fear > there are a lot more hidden in the 45 JS tests that we don’t run yet. > Especially our replicator tests are part of the skipped tests and that > worries me. > >>> > >>> * * * > >>> > >>> Nevertheless, we should try to get a beta out before the holidays. > What is missing before we would feel comfortable getting a beta release out? > >>> > >>> Who can help get us over the hump? > >>> > >>> Best > >>> Jan > >>> -- > >>> > >> > > > > -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
