Jan, The playful exploration of the single-tier functionality has followed CouchDB from the very start. It is one of the unique features, and even if you regard it as a side effect it has always held a great potential for creating interest and try-out activity for the project. Hence, it definately belong in the weekly news.
It goes without saying that this is IMO and all of that. I just dont to include the H because I dissaprove strongly of your respons to the massive work that ermouth has done to explore the limits of the so-called "coachapps": To send signals of dissaprovment without giving a single reason is lazy and disrespectful, especially in this case given the quality and thoroughness of ermouth's work. To discourage couchapp contributions from the weekly news is extreme. It is unworthy of an OS project. johs On 2. sep. 2016, at 08.27, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: Project wise, we probably shouldn’t get people too excited about CouchApps at this point. > On 2. sep. 2016, at 09.10, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> On 02 Sep 2016, at 09:08, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> On 02 Sep 2016, at 08:45, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Still, it's about CouchDB use case with pro/cons described (; >>> >>> sure, I just wouldn’t put it in the weekly news ;) >> >> Why not? It's good, real experience that shows that better pick >> node.js to get better performance rather than stay and dance around >> couchapps which is fun. We don't have quite a lot of posts like that >> kind. >> > > I’m not inclined to explain my position on CouchApps yet again. > > I’m not the editor in chief for the weekly news, but if asked, I would not > include this item for reasons that are reasonably well documented in the > mailing list archives (so not very). > > Best > Jan > -- >
