On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:00, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>
Open for suggestions. I left my change to not read the body automatically in there, since I think it could do good things for couch_mrview as is. Some of these module dependencies will become more clear as we start breaking up the core into more OTPieces. Thanks for being vigilant. Sorry for getting trigger-happy. >>> - benoit >>> >> >
