couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, first round
Date Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:32:25 GMT
I'd like some opinions on whether COUCHDB-1407 constitutes a release
blocking issue. Yes, I understand that the JSON spec is very weak on
numbers, blah blah boo splat. Is this because of the switch to ejson?
Is jiffy more compatible on this score?

For my part, I'm close to considering it a release-blocking
regression. At the very least this change should be included at
but I'd rather it was fixed.


On 11 February 2012 10:44, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Jason Smith <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Randall Leeds <> wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 2012 6:09 PM, "Randall Leeds" <> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 17:48, Jason Smith <> wrote:
>>>> > Hi, Noah. When I saw it hit Git, I realized it was a breaking change,
>>>> > and I asked around. If memory serves, Randall happened to be on at the
>>>> > time and he asked me the same question you just did. I said I never
>>>> > saw an RFC email and that's when he realized it was not done publicly.
>>>> I was aware the entire time, but I think the motivation is sound and
>>>> it needed to be done. A couple committers spoke up to say we didn't
>>>> think it was sensitive enough to warrant the private discussion but
>>>> ultimately there was broad consensus on the implementation and the
>>>> change itself. One of those (let us all celebrate) extremely rare
>>>> times where there wasn't opportunity for broad community input.
>>>> Creating a view on _users that pulls the relevant parts of a user
>>>> document out is the way forward for public profiles, I think.
>>>> If someone would write a blog post showing how that works it'd be
>>>> great. In retrospect this would have been a great thing to do weeks
>>>> ago. Lesson learned.
>>> Just to be clear I don't want to dismiss your concerns. If you believe this
>>> needs a config option rather than just documentation now is a good time to
>>> speak up loudly since the vote was aborted.
>> Thanks. I am concerned. To me, the change is noteworthy but not a showstopper.
>> I tested your suggestion, however I do not think it is possible.
>> Non-admins cannot access a view.
>> $ curlp http://admin:admin@localhost:5984/_users/_design/public -d
>> '{"views":{"all":{"map":"function(doc) { emit(doc._id, doc) }"}}}'
>> {"ok":true,"id":"_design/public","rev":"1-f605d1ea7825645132f54a91a76a1ddc"}
>> $ curl -i http://user:user@localhost:5984/_users/_design/public/_view/all
>> HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
>> Server: CouchDB/1.2.0 (Erlang OTP/R15B)
>> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:57:43 GMT
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> Content-Length: 102
>> Cache-Control: must-revalidate
>> {"error":"forbidden","reason":"Only admins can access design document
>> actions for system databases."}
> Yes that's by design.
> - benoƮt

View raw message