[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-69?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12743868#action_12743868
]
Paul Joseph Davis commented on COUCHDB-69:
------------------------------------------
After taking a closer look at this, I'm with Chris and Adam that the double
deleted leaf thing is kind of weird. I didn't sink far enough in to think of
anything better, but it does seem kind of odd.
Two notes about testing. I'd like to see alot more thorough tests for this. Its
kind of big, so making sure we understand how things are changing would be
good. Plus it'd help to have better tests for the rev tree behavior for people
learning about revisions. I'd vote for dropping 95% of what's in history.js to
focus on testing the behavior of revisions. I'd also vote for renaming it to
rev_tree.js or similar and including basic revision tree info.
Also, could you add an etap test 066-kt-get-nodes.t or similar or add to one of
the existing tests for your new code in couch_key_tree.erl?
> Allow selective retaining of older revisions to a document
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-69
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-69
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Database Core
> Environment: All
> Reporter: Jan Lehnardt
> Assignee: Paul Joseph Davis
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.10
>
> Attachments: history_revs.2.patch, history_revs.3.patch,
> history_revs.4.patch, history_revs.patch
>
>
> At the moment, compaction gets rid of all old revisions of a document. Also,
> replication also deals with the latest revision. It would be nice if it would
> be possible to specify a list of revisions to keep around that do not get
> compacted away and replicated.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
