On 04/15/2012 02:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Tim McNamara
wrote:
One of the good reasons for this format (although I have no idea if it
is why it's why it was chosen) is that there are some good statistics
behind pairwise comparison.
The main problem with t
analytic, hence the bias above :-)
Keep up the good work
Thanks
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Robert Newson [mailto:rnew...@apache.org]
Sent: 14 April 2012 18:30
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Cc: u...@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed
That's great! Even just a short sentence makes it way easier to get an
idea about the particular feature.
> I think it's pretty close. Only the User-Facing section should be in
> the next vote.
For some features it might me not so clear if they really belong to the
"Developer Facing Features" se
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:02, Robert Newson wrote:
> He's what I have so far: https://gist.github.com/2387973
Looks nice. I think it might make sense to fold WebSockets and
EventSource into a single item, i.e. AFAICT the main point is to allow
non-polling forms of consuming _changes from
JavaScr
Consider _mvcc as a suggestion to help educate. Other proposals are welcome.
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Apr 2012, at 13:16, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>> A bit busy right now but _history seems the exact opposite of the _rev
>> -> _mvcc name c
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> A bit busy right now but _history seems the exact opposite of the _rev
> -> _mvcc name change. We want to clarify that CouchDB does *not*
> provide history.
>
imo changing the name doesn't really fix the problem. We keep saying
it's mvc, the
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Bob Dionne
wrote:
> Benoit,
>
> Thanks for mentioning the "links" item, that should definitely be in the
> list. I'd be curious to know what kind if usage the Basho folks have seen
> with that one.
>
> I think it's a good feature but I also think it kind of runs
A bit busy right now but _history seems the exact opposite of the _rev
-> _mvcc name change. We want to clarify that CouchDB does *not*
provide history.
B.
On 15 April 2012 12:56, Robert Newson wrote:
> Including comments from the gist;
>
> from mcoolin;
>
> I'd add a definitions section for the
Including comments from the gist;
from mcoolin;
I'd add a definitions section for the following:
CORS - Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) is a web browser
technology specification, which defines ways for a web server to allow
its resources to be accessed by a web page from a different domain.
Benoit,
Thanks for mentioning the "links" item, that should definitely be in the list.
I'd be curious to know what kind if usage the Basho folks have seen with that
one.
I think it's a good feature but I also think it kind of runs against the grain
architecturally in couchdb. Documents now ar
This is great, a little more descriptive putting them into two categories. I'm
not sure why we'd exclude the programmer items from the voting
On Apr 15, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Robert Newson wrote:
> He's what I have so far: https://gist.github.com/2387973
>
> I think it's pretty close. Only the Use
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> He's what I have so far: https://gist.github.com/2387973
>
> I think it's pretty close. Only the User-Facing section should be in
> the next vote.
>
> B.
>
Most is OK for me. A couple of remarks on user facing though:
1.3 : _rev renaming sh
He's what I have so far: https://gist.github.com/2387973
I think it's pretty close. Only the User-Facing section should be in
the next vote.
B.
On 15 April 2012 10:51, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
>> The feedback on the mailing lists, IRC and t
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
> The feedback on the mailing lists, IRC and twitter has been very
> helpful, thanks everyone for the responses!
>
> I'm going to take this feedback and provide a condensed list of
> features. I will write up each item on our wiki, then we'll r
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Tim McNamara
wrote:
> One of the good reasons for this format (although I have no idea if it
> is why it's why it was chosen) is that there are some good statistics
> behind pairwise comparison.
The main problem with that format is comparing apples with oranges.
One of the good reasons for this format (although I have no idea if it
is why it's why it was chosen) is that there are some good statistics
behind pairwise comparison.
On 15 April 2012 05:25, Bob Dionne wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6
The feedback on the mailing lists, IRC and twitter has been very
helpful, thanks everyone for the responses!
I'm going to take this feedback and provide a condensed list of
features. I will write up each item on our wiki, then we'll reset the
poll so that more folks can vote knowledgeably on the f
On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bob Dionne
> wrote:
>> I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most of
>> these features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to
>> internal refactoring concerns and
Yes, perhaps the next move is a wiki page for these items
(deduplicated and with better names and descriptions).
B.
On 14 April 2012 18:11, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bob Dionne
> wrote:
>> I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most of
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bob Dionne
wrote:
> I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most of
> these features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to
> internal refactoring concerns and so forth.
>
> It might help for everyone to see the list of
I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most of these
features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to internal
refactoring concerns and so forth.
It might help for everyone to see the list of features (here's a cleaned up
version I got from BobN) [1].
I know CouchDB's internals to some degree and even contributed a few
bits to its codebase a while ago (and still follow its development to
some degree). However, I see myself primarily as a CouchDB user. I've
been using it successfully not only in my own pet projects, but also
together with a smal
I went through them for a while and gave up because there were many
internal ones I didn't understand. Then I looked at results and saw a
number of ideas I would really like to vote for.
In other words this site's methodology didn't work for me.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Joan Touzet wrot
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, April 14, 2012, Joan Touzet wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Boston this
>> week! In case you didn't know, the (25 pages!) of meeting minutes are
>> available for review at http://s.
On Saturday, April 14, 2012, Joan Touzet wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Boston this
> week! In case you didn't know, the (25 pages!) of meeting minutes are
> available for review at http://s.apache.org/ndI .
>
> Here's where we need YOUR HELP. During the summ
did we talk about ranking rhem? What about the developer interest too? Also
it may be interresting to order them by the technical needs to develop them
(ie. A depends on B).
benoît
On Saturday, April 14, 2012, Joan Touzet wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Bost
Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Boston this
week! In case you didn't know, the (25 pages!) of meeting minutes are
available for review at http://s.apache.org/ndI .
Here's where we need YOUR HELP. During the summit, the participants
identified 38 key features we think a
27 matches
Mail list logo
