On 12/12/13, 11:52 AM, Alexander Shorin wrote:
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.
Makes sense. :) thanks.
--
,,,^..^,,,
