On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On another note, I was thinking about it some more, and I think that > renaming _rev to _cc would be a huge pain in the ass for a lot of > people (who don't go around abusing it) and it can probably be > avoided. > > The only valid use case for requesting a particular _rev of a > document, is in resolving conflicts introduced by replication. So if > we restrict access to old revs (by default) to an endpoint which gives > an array of documents (each conflicted rev) then it won't be usable as > a revision control system, only as a conflict resolution system. If > there's not an easy way to think you have implemented a version > control system (eg no API endpoint for accessing non-conflicting revs) > I bet we'll see misapprehension of _rev happen a lot less. >
Trying to get this thread back on track about an actual small concrete change to the code we could make that might keep people from trying to use _rev as a versioning system. Reiterating: I think the clean solution is to remove the API for loading docs at a particular rev. Instead we allow only the loading of all conflicted revs (or of course the HEAD rev). I'll wait for people to say why this is a bad idea before I say why it's a good idea. Cheers, Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
