On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Benjamin Young <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/6/13, 10:17 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >> >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 09:37 , Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 26 November 2013 17:10, Benjamin Young <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This is a nit...maybe...but can we be sure that `_utils/fauxton` and >>>> `_utils/fauxton/` both work? :) >>>> >>>> Would prevent "rock in shoe" sort of frustrations. :) >>>> >>> true :) but that would mean you are not allowed to create a database >>> named >>> fauxton which would be requested via _utils/fauxton/ >>> >>> This has already been discussed on IRC and the "solution" was imo more or >>> less to wait till fauxton will replace futon. Then you will call it via >>> well known _utils/. >> >> There are no discussions on IRC that are binding. If any of this happens, >> please make sure that dev@ is informed. This is important to ensure >> transparency of the development process/ >> >> I don’t see why `/_utils/fauxton/` would collide with a database called >> `fauxton` as that would live at `/_fauxton`, but I might be missing >> something >> subtle. > > > First, thanks for taking the rock out of the shoe, Jan. :D > > Second, why was /_utils/fauxton(/) chosen over /_fauxton? > > Was there a mailing list conversation about it? > > Seems adding that to a config (even now) would have been simpler than all > the custom handling.
IIRC the motivation was to not create too much _magic resources, to not confuse people even if Fauxton ships on right of experimental feature. -- ,,,^..^,,,
