couchdb-couchapp mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com>
Subject Re: On 1.x deprecation
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2018 08:56:50 GMT
Thanks ermouth,

I agree with you that the logic behind the proposal could have been
clearer. A sunsetting announcement linked to the reliability criteria for 2.x
would have been preferable.

I value your opinions very much because I understand that you have
deployed large systems with CouchDB at the core.  If you would be so 
kind as to share numbers, answers to the following two questions would 
have been interesting.

Approximately how many 1.x nodes to you have in production now?
What is your estimated total no of users on these?

Johs


> On 6 Jul 2018, at 01:44, ermouth <ermouth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> TLDR; Please vote -1 at @dev thread ‘[PROPOSAL] Officially deprecate
> CouchDB 1.x.’ All arguments of the proposal are of no basis.
> 
> ---
> 
> Hope, we all read deprecation statement from Joan. She provided one reason
> directly, also several were coined in indirect way.
> 
> 1. “No one is maintaining the 1.x.x branches of CouchDB anymore”
> 
> Probably that’s because they just do not need daily maintenance.
> 
> 2. “Issues stack up on the tracker with no response.”
> 
> Ok, lets count. Right now couchdb github repo has 133 issues open, 11 of
> them have 1.x tag.
> 
> 21 of those 133 are marked with red bug tag, but none of them with 1.x. So
> seems 1.x have no serious bugs, but 2.x have a pile.
> 
> How about “no response”? All 1.x issues have at least one. 33% of non-1.x
> issues have zero answers. So I’d say if there exist a stack up, it’s not
> related to 1.x, it’s more about 2.x.
> 
> 3. “Having to patch 1.x as well as 2.x slows down the security team's
> ability to push releases quickly out the door”
> 
> First, this game is two-sided. Probably, necessaty to fix not so adopted
> version slowed down the team from releasing very minor upgrade for very
> stable version widely used in production.
> 
> Probably, back-porting of not widely adopted 2.x features into 1.7 also
> slowed process down.
> 
> Or, probably, there were no slowdown at all? As I know, that ‘slow down’
> was never complained.
> 
> 4. “By focusing on what we do best - supporting 2.x”
> 
> As I showed earlier it’s looks incomparably easier to support 1.x than 2.x.
> As I can see from numbers, supporting 2.x issues have already taken all
> focus. It happened about 1.5 years ago I’d say.
> 
> Ok, have anyone ever complained? Today I consulted a guy from BY by phone,
> yesterday from IN – also privately. Classic reasonable CouchDB guys seem to
> be pretty well aware they won’t have a lot of help from official support
> anyway. They do not need bug fixes, they want to discuss use strategies,
> solution details, they want hints and opinions how to improve things that
> already works fine.
> 
> So 1.x doesn’t blur developers’ focus, unless developers start demnding
> granny’s blood. Granny is still pretty healthy.
> 
> 5. “I’m definitely seeing more people on 2.x these days than 1.x,
> *significantly* more - both from our informal support channels as well as
> through GitHub Issues and requests for paid support”
> 
> This argument is very strange. It looks like someone already have a lot of
> 2.x tickets and want even more. Sorry, but I don’t see how it reflects real
> users distribution, I only see that 2.x is more buggy and though sells paid
> support better.
> 
> ---
> 
> So, as I see all above arguments for deprecation have no relation to real
> accountable state of things, unless I suppose the goal is paid support.
> Honestly, I can’t believe in it.
> 
> Then why deprecate?
> 
> The deprecation notice by itself breaks reputation of 1.6/1.7, which is for
> now waaay more reliable than 2.x. At least 1.6 doesn’t bite unexpectedly.
> 
> I hope keeping things as is for about a year is well enough to fix most
> visible 2.x issues, and then – long live 1.x.
> 
> Unfortunately I’m not subscribed to @dev and can’t reply into past proposal
> thread even if get subscribed now.
> 
> So if you feel my arguments are reasonable, I ask you to cast ‘-1’ under
> that proposal. Thank you.
> 
> ermouth

………………………………………
Johannes Ensby


Business to Web AS
Tollbugata 8, N- 0152 Oslo, Norway
+47 611 00 006 (mobile)
+47 611 00 700 (switchboard)
johs@b2w.com
www.linkedin.com/in/ensby
www.b2w.com


Mime
View raw message