On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Filipe David Manana 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. > 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.
In my opinion all of the changes in Benoit's commit belong in CouchDB, I simply haven't gotten around to introducing them. I do think that the right way to commit them is to separate the patch into a series of independent, isolated changesets. I think that the practice of filing a JIRA ticket for each non-trivial commit (aka the fdmanana method) is reasonable and not too onerous. Detailed commit messages describing the reason for the change (aka the davisp method) are also a good idea for the changes we're discussing here, as they improve the interaction between CouchDB and the OTP subsystem in subtle but important ways. I don't want us to move to a strict RTC procedure; the lazy consensus we've been using so far has worked just fine in my opinion. Best, Adam
