Hi, Bob. Thanks for your feedback.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Dionne
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poor
> documentation. update_seq != last_seq
Nobody knows what update_seq means. Even a CouchDB committer got it wrong.
Fine. It is "poor documentation."
Adding last_seq into db_info is not helpful because last_seq also does
not mean what we think it means. My last email demonstrates that
last_seq is in fact incoherent.
What would be marvelous in the db_info is this:
The sequence id of the most recent document update, or zero if
there has not been one.
If you add it, that would be great but you might first consider what
its relationship is to last_seq, why the values differ sometimes, and
whether that is good for users.
Thanks again!
--
Iris Couch
