two questions...
1) where is this being forwarded from ?
2) Where was the decision made to remove the tx operation?
geir
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Antony Blakey wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
Gentlemen,
I'm really hanging out on this issue. So far Damien has said that
the transactional group-operation is definitely being removed,
whilst Chris has said absolutely that no decision has been made.
This has serious implications for me, because my code assumes a
transactional _bulk_docs implementation.
If it's being left as is, or simply being renamed, then I can move
forward. If it's being removed, then I'm going to have to maintain
a private fork, because I presume that a decision to remove it
rather than rename it means that you wouldn't accept a patch that
simply adds that code under a different name (otherwise, why remove
it when you could just rename it?).
Having to maintain a private fork has other serious implications
for me.
Is there some other way I need to approach this to get a resolution?
Thanks,
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
-- Steven Wright
