Can +1 but its gonna feel really silly when I think about how the code is already merged...
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already. > > There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes) > but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this? > > I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate > to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it. > > -Joan > > On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote: > > Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still > > considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the > > current implementations. > > I would like to merge them in. > > > > Cheers > > Garren > > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's > >> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the > >> basis for eventual documentation. > >> > >> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but > >> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a > >> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo. > >> > >> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they > >> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs. > >> > >> Is that too onerous of a request? > >> > >> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in > >> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really > >> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source > >> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is > >> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line > >> with expectations. > >> > >> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet > >> > >> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote: > >>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of > >> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be > >> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if > >> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a > >> note to dev@ to call that out. > >>> > >>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still > >> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to > >> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value. > >>> > >>> Cheers, Adam > >>> > >>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> > >>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know > >>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's > >> useful? > >>>> > >>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we > >> write an > >>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from > >> how > >>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code > >>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further > >> from > >>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should > >> we > >>>> leave it at a certain point? > >>>> > >>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the > >>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we > >>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature > >>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Garren > >>> > >> > >
