On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:44:11 +, Shane Fagan shanepatrickfa...@ubuntu.com
wrote:
Im saying couchdb is fundamentally flawed by the fact that there are
problems with how scalable it is. That warrants changing it because at
the numbers that are needed to sustain much more people wouldn't
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:20:41 +0100, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm rather dismayed by this, I have to say.
I can imagine. We (Ubuntu One) tried as much as we could (beyond what
some would call reasonable) to not have to come to this end, but, as I
said, we could
Den 22. nov. 2011 16:45, skrev John Rowland Lenton:
I don't know where you got the impression I or we were proposing or
suggesting that the distribution do that. Ubuntu One, as upstream of
desktopcouch, is letting Ubuntu know that we're not going to go on
working on desktopcouch, and the
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:11:40 +0100, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
joerlend.schins...@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't actually considered DesktopCouch to be dependent on Ubuntu One.
I considered Ubuntu Ones database synchronization service to be
dependent on the DesktopCouch, but not vice versa. Much the
On 11/22/2011 09:11 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
While I can understand the reasons why you feel it necessary to pull the
plug on the db sync service, it is not immediately obvious to me why
that would necessarily result in you dropping support for local storage
in personal databases on the
Den 22. nov. 2011 17:17, skrev Rick Spencer:
DesktopCouch performance on the client, and failures to sync on the
server have been have both major thorns in my side. Not to mention
suffering through writing javascript map/reduce statements, ug!
First of all, you can write that stuff in
