Thanks for this Andy, I can contribute to the discussion of the feature seen from a user perspective. Would it be appropriate to present some use cases?
best Johs > On 1. okt. 2015, at 12.33, Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org> wrote: > > Johs, > > Let me please show the steps needed. > > * discuss the feature very clearly on the dev@. Please make sure that core > developers as committers with commit bits are involved > > * code the feature. Make sure to implement tests > > * send a pull request and show it to dev@ > > * finally the community will accept or decline the feature (this will > involve refactoring and changes) > > As Alex said. The PMC or Jan do not decide about the feature. > > All the best > > Andy > On 1 Oct 2015 11:21, "Alexander Shorin" <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Johs Ensby <j...@b2w.com> wrote: >>> will you welcome ermouths rewrite contribution? >> >> The decision is depends on the implementation. If it will be good, why >> not? Finally, CouchDB is open source project: we cannot forbid people >> right for contributions, we only welcome them. >> >>> Arguments against couchapps has to do with performance and the folly in >> competing with node.js. >> >> Performance question for the new _rewrite implementation is very >> depends on query server. Once it can process this kind of functions, >> you may use something better than JS to gain better performance. That >> could be Erlang native query server, or luerl-based one, or else you >> like. >> >> -- >> ,,,^..^,,, >>
