+1 Sent from my iPhone
> On 31 Jul 2018, at 13:52, Eiri <e...@eiri.ca> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Since we seems to be in agreement and with 2.1.2 released, I'm starting to > work on this. > Just wanted to let everyone know. > > > Regards, > Eric > > > >> On Apr 3, 2018, at 13:03, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> 1. No one has worked on a fix since its contribution prior to 2.0. >>> 2. The code will always be in git in an older revision if someone is >>> looking for it. >>> 3. We have #592 which describes the fundamental problem that needs to be >>> resolved. (By the way, with my PMC hat on, you should unassign this issue >>> from yourself unless you're actively working on it *right now*.) >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eiri" <e...@eiri.ca> >>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 8:15:21 AM >>> Subject: Proposal: removing view changes code from mrview >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> It is my understanding that a current implementation of view changes in >>> mrview is conceptually broken. I heard from Robert Newson that he and >>> Benjamin Bastian found that some time ago doing testing with deletion and >>> recreation of docs emitting same keys in the views. >>> >>> I propose to remove view changes code from mrview and its mention from >>> documentation, as it seem that people keep trying to use those for filtered >>> replication or getting a false impression that it's a simple fix in fabric. >>> Not to mention that the current implementation quite complicates mrviews >>> code and takes space in view files with building unneeded seq and kseq >>> btrees. >>> >>> We can re-implement this feature later in more robust way as there are >>> clearly a demand for it. Please share your opinion. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Eric >>> >
