couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branching 1.2.x
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:04:47 GMT
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 17:59, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 12, 2011, at 18:07 , Noah Slater wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The fact that we branch 1.2.x won't mean we can't get more tickets in
> there, it's just to unblock trunk for post-1.2.x commits. I hope this makes
> sense and I hope you all agree.
> >>>
> >>> How are we going to stop a repeat of the 1.0 release branch "kitchen
> sink" problems?
> >>
> >> I'd like everybody to suggest their wish for 1.2.x and then agree with
> this group on how much of the resulting list we can actually get into the
> branch in a reasonable amount of time :)
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I would like to put COUCHDB-431  in 1.2 , the last version is coming
> > later today. (I'm currentlly testing it)
>
> I agree cross domain XHR options would be useful. I haven't had a
> chance to dig in, but there does seem to be some question about the
> right way to implement. I'd be ok to save COUCHDB-431 for 1.3 as CORS
> is not a mainstream feature of the web (yet).
>

If the default behavior remains the same I'm +1 on putting this on 1.2. I
think it's good practice to ship new features earlier, turned off by
default, with a warning about it being experimental in the news/changelog.
I'd rather get this in front of users sooner.


>
> >
> > I'm -1 for COUCHDB-1238. Since we are about to change the way we
> > handle the users, I think  it's better to wait for this one rather
> > than introducing another big dependancy on this user db.
>
> I don't think the user db is going anywhere, at least not in the 1.x
> timeframe. We are talking about ways to make it easier to work with
> and more secure, and I support that. Regardless, the COUCHDB-1238 is
> something that is useful to anyone using the user db and does not put
> a burden on folks who are not. For instance, I am building an app that
> uses this feature to connect your phone to the cloud, without the user
> ever having to specify a password.
>

Agree with Chris. +1

I'd also like to see COUCHDB-1060.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1060

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message