Great point, +1 to just making that change on master right now. B.
On 16 Jul 2014, at 22:35, Robert Kowalski <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to see 'JSONP responses should be sent with a > "application/javascript"' (https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/236) > beside the two merges in the 2.0 release - it is a small, but breaking > change and the original issue is flying around in Jira for years. > > Best, > Robert > > > 2014-07-13 22:17 GMT+02:00 Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]>: > >> >> Since we follow semantic versioning, the only meaning behind naming our >> next release 2.0 and not 1.7 is that it contains backwards incompatible >> changes. >> >> It’s for the CouchDB community as a whole to determine what is and isn’t >> in a release. Certainly merging in bigcouch and rcouch are a huge part of >> the 2.0 release, but they aren’t necessarily the only things. If they >> hadn’t changed the API in incompatible ways, they wouldn’t cause a major >> version bump. >> >> With that said then, I’m interested in hearing what else, besides the two >> merges, we feel we want to take on in our first major revision bump in >> approximately forever? At minimum, I would like to see a change that allows >> us to use versions of spidermonkey released after 1.8.5, whatever that >> change might be. >> >> B. >> >> On 13 Jul 2014, at 20:31, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Improving the view server protocol is a great idea, but it is appropriate >>> for a 2.0 timeframe? I would think it would make more sense in a 3.0 >>> timeframe, given 2.0 is all about merging forks, not writing new features >>> entirely from scratch. >>> >>> -Joan >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:52:40 AM >>> Subject: Re: CouchDB 2.0: breaking the backward compatibility >>> >>> >>> Adding mvcc for _security is a great idea (happily, Cloudant have done >> so very recently, so I will be pulling that work over soon). >>> >>> A better view server protocol is also a great idea. >>> >>> >>> On 13 Jul 2014, at 13:13, Samuel Williams < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 13/07/14 23:47, Alexander Shorin wrote: >>>>> Our view server is compiles functions on each view index update >>>>> instead of reusing inner cache. This is because of out-dated protocol: >>>>> others design function are works differently from views. While it's >>>>> good to change and improve query server protocol completely, this task >>>>> requires more time to be done. We should have a least plan B to do >>>>> small steps in good direction. >>>> As already suggested, here is my proposal for 2.0 view/query server: >>>> >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JtfvCpNB9pRQyLhS5KkkEdJ-ghSCv89xnw5HDMTCsp8/edit >>>> >>>> I welcome people to suggest improvements/changes/ideas. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Samuel >>> >> >>
