I'd propose a Futon.Next IRC meeting with all the people that care about the topic. There we could gather a list of requirements, ideas and actually discuss how we want to proceed.
Discussing, tracking ideas, requirements and suggestions of such a topic solely on the ML get a little tedious in my opinion. What are the opinions on a Futon.Next IRC meeting? On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Ryan Ramage <ryan.ram...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> I'd assume that in a release we'd compile things down into the > share/www > >>> directory and serve out of there (as we do with the current futon, and > will > >>> do with the docs), so what we need IMHO is a build tool not a couchapp > push > >>> tool. > >>> > >> > >> If Futon.Next should become a proper CouchApp as discussed then we > >> certainly need a CouchApp push tool. > > > > One requirement out of Cloudant is the ability to turn things on and > > off. This will require persistance. Have a db to persistant settings > > would be a feature of using a couchapp. > > That's not how I read this requirement. My understanding was that > Cloudant wanted the ability to turn off features at build > configuration time. It would affect which js files get pushed. That > means it would either effect which files grunt.js processes, or it > would affect what files get listed in some couchapp manifest. > > If runtime configuration is necessary, that should be articulated more > clearly as a requirement, but I worry that this starts to balloon into > more of a CMS agree with Alexander that it starts to look like we've > gone too far. >
