On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 02:48, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > Randall, > > Did we miss the chance to review this work before it landed?
Yes. Sorry. I thought it was more trivial than it was. I owe it to Filipe for catching the mistake. While I changed get_design_docs not to get the body by default (I like this change), he's correct that it skips deleted docs and that would break _changes. My apologies, Bob. I've just reverted it. > > B. > > On 9 November 2011 10:36, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Filipe David Manana >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Randall, I have to disagree on this one. >>> >>> The reason to not call couch_db:get_design_docs/1 is to avoid reading >>> the body of the documents, which is not needed. >>> >>> Plus, couch_db:get_design_docs/1 skips deleted documents, which will >>> causes _changes rows to be skipped. >>> >> >> maybe couch_db:get_design_docs could take some options to handle the >> case. I think it's a good idea to use couch_db as abstraction to the >> deep level. >> >> - benoit >> >
