On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 22:02, Jason Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>> The other thing, CouchDB as a BrowserId RP, would simply be instead of
>> clicking 'login' at the bottom right in futon, there would be a BrowserId
>> sign in button there. This is nice
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:49, Jason Smith wrote:
> Hi, Bob. Thanks for your feedback.
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Dionne
> wrote:
>> Jason,
>>
>> After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poor
>> documentation. update_seq != last_seq
>
> Nobody knows wha
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 22:30, Jason Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Randall Leeds
> wrote:
>> Awesome. I'm glad you testing descending. Sounds like "last_seq" is a
>> poor name, because it applies to the particular changes request.
>>
>> So then we have this other thing floating
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:49, Jason Smith wrote:
>> Hi, Bob. Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Dionne
>> wrote:
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poo
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> Awesome. I'm glad you testing descending. Sounds like "last_seq" is a
> poor name, because it applies to the particular changes request.
>
> So then we have this other thing floating around "the sequence number
> of the last replicable docume
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:49, Jason Smith wrote:
> Hi, Bob. Thanks for your feedback.
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Dionne
> wrote:
>> Jason,
>>
>> After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poor
>> documentation. update_seq != last_seq
>
> Nobody knows wha
Hi, Bob. Thanks for your feedback.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Dionne
wrote:
> Jason,
>
> After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poor
> documentation. update_seq != last_seq
Nobody knows what update_seq means. Even a CouchDB committer got it wrong.
Fine.
Jason,
After looking into this a bit I do not think it's a bug, at most poor
documentation. update_seq != last_seq Most of the time it does but as we know
now sometimes it doesn't. It's a different thing. I"m not sure where else in
the code we depend on update_seq reflecting all the changes
Hi, Randall. Thanks for inviting me to argue a bit more. I hope you'll
be persuaded that, if -1367 is not a bug, at least there is *some*
bug.
tl;dr summary:
This is a real bug--a paper cut with a workaround, but still a real bug.
1. Apps want a changes feed since 0, but they want to know when
t
