On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 it's something good to have too, and I doubt anyone has something against a more OTP compliant organization. My concerns were: 1) The patch introduced 2 distinct changes: supervision tree and handling of configuration changes; Like you and Paul said before, it should be spitted into separate patches; 2) Bigcouch has many changes compared to the standard CouchDB. Maybe this patch only worked fine along with some of those other differences; 3) While the supervision and configuration changes handling approaches Bigcouch uses work, maybe the developers were aware of existing limitations and didn't recommend it for standard CouchDB; 4) I believe that Adam is the one with more knowledge and production experience with supervision trees and OTP best practices. Therefore he should give his approval before introducing these changes > > 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, Agreed. > > Adam -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected], [email protected] "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
