On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Seconded. That's a big change with zero discussion and no Jira ticket. >>> +1 on reverting until a discussion is had. >>> >>> B. >> These changes don't introduce any regressions, and are well tested. >> Did you read the code ? >> > > It's not a question of reading or not the code.
It is if you start to say it's trivial or not. > All the tests pass, but to me that only means "maybe there aren't any > regressions". > > I believe there are very good reasons for having it in Bigcouch and CouchDB. > But I would like to have before a vote and have feedback from Adam > regarding no issues with standard CouchDB, as I believe he's the one > that knows better what the implications might be. > > WhiIe I don't consider this as a non trivial patch, I reverted it and opened COUCHDB-1010 issue. https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=12494493 - benoît.
