Thanks Paul, this makes sense. If it counts, I vote for forcing a conflict ;)
Cheers, Viktor -----Original Message----- From: Paul Davis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 November 2011 20:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: possible compact bug in 1.1.1 Your example here is actually hitting a very specific edge case as demonstrated by Marcello's test. As of many versions ago, revisions are generated using a hashing scheme of the document contents. In your particular case the requests you're issuing contain the same identical data in such a way that CouchDB will generate a revision of the doc. Given this, we then have to look at how this plays into replication. Basically, when we merge the revision trees we get to the case where it's "oh, we already have this version, cool" because we do already have this version. Whether or not that behavior is best, or if we should force a conflict if we don't add a leaf during a write is another question. In other words, the system is working fine, but this particular behavior can be a bit unexpected. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
