+1 on using ?l2b (and other macros) in all src/couchdb code. Any lingering list_to_binary calls should be switched to the macro.
I think it's too early to split out the header file to allow use by plugin authors. I'm in a minority, I think, by saying that without some extra work, we are not ready to claim we support plugins. I'd like to see, at minimum, a versioning scheme to declare compatibility between couchdb and plugins (like browsers do, for example). Beyond that, a statement on what parts of the interior of couchdb are considered stable enough for plugin authors to depend on. B. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> codebase like suggest filippe. >> > s/filippe/filipe/ *kh* >
