I've tagged it for 1.1.1, we've gone this long with that weird behavior, another release can't hurt.
Damien and Chris say the 1141 behavior is intentional. I'd like to open that up for discussion. While it may have been intended, it was obviously unknown to Paul and Jan, and, I'd wager, every single user of CouchDB and every author of every client library too. My view is that the default should be that delete deletes. If there is still a case to preserve other metadata (a 'deleted_at' or 'deleted_by' field, say), an extra flag would allow that case ?preserve_body=true, or something. B. On 27 April 2011 00:29, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26 Apr 2011, at 15:26, Randall Leeds wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 15:13, Paul Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 1141 reported today might be a good candidate to get in. It looked >>> pretty simple and I think me and Rob and Adam narrowed down the fix on >>> IRC earlier. >>> >> >> We should just get in the habit of making bugfix releases not take >> forever. Ship it in two weeks as 1.1.1 with anything else we uncover >> in the meantime. >> >> There will always be problems and issues that no amount of test suite >> running will reveal and we'll find them faster if we get 1.1 out the >> door. > > +1 > > Not saying we should necessarily not fix 1141 if it is close, but we > may as well ship it int 1.1.1 soon. Unless it is a major issue of > course, which this one doesn't look like. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > >> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hey all >>>> >>>> http://s.apache.org/couchdb-open-issues-1.1.0 shows >>>> >>>> No matching issues found. >>>> >>>> First: Hooray and thanks everybody for helping :) >>>> >>>> Second: We should get this out. Is there anything else you'd >>>> like to see addressed before we kick off the release procedure? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Jan >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >
