Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.180 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 10.52.26.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.26.8;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Y+446K+pf0-J1QwoVO3CmVEEL7ZYFvWpiiTT3eQwt+3SepwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+Y+445m_ofkwvLuB9eRnVwmAnOBR2LwQV2ZMbiARTwSCzj-ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <1FE932A3-8DF7-4B8A-9E88-448FBA671F8F@apache.org>
 <53080A6A-93C2-478F-B739-BBF7A3634C07@apache.org>
 <CAJ_m3YAQj-Vh8L+0a4d=Nk5Kc_rcsdN39wB52Lu0aYT==YmSJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23D481E8-3F4E-4DF2-9818-935BB3FDA2F1@apache.org>
 <CA+Y+445wpZizQC0T8jP0fOwHp1pJoph+dPO4kkYDVrG3UEwX2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABvT1DGKvvduSqWNERYQg4Vg3p-jX3Ff4Td53VN7J3PH4p+6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCFD271E-1C57-41BC-B788-97C06B569CC5@apache.org>
 <CA+Y+446K+pf0-J1QwoVO3CmVEEL7ZYFvWpiiTT3eQwt+3SepwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:41:03 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAJ_m3YA8=+juu0N-qiT19PR6nS4D1c224ViJ7HCwY4mQuJ1Rwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Issues blocking the 1.2.0 release
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Did we fix the original JSON thing that started this whole broughaha?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 21.02.2012, at 22:38, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I resolved the ipv6 ticket as 'cannot reproduce' given that two
>> > committers have verified ipv6 replication with 1.2.x. Time for round
>> > 2?
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 21 February 2012 21:11, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> >> Are we blocked on anything else? Are we good to go?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks guys, committed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Noah, 1.2.0 is unblocked on this one.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 20:13 , Paul Davis wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1 on the patch to require admin for _changes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrot=
e:
>> >>>>> *nudge*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't feel very confident with a single opinion (thanks Robert),
>> and
>> >>> would love your input on this one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>> Jan
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 16:12 , Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 14, 2012, at 13:14 , Noah Slater wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Devs,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Please outline:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> =A0- What remains to be fixed for regression purposes
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I want to bring up one more thing (sorry :).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> /_users/_changes is currently end-user readable. While
>> >>> /_users/_changes?include_docs=3Dtrue will not fetch docs the request=
ing
>> user
>> >>> doesn't have access to, it still gets all doc ids in the /_users db =
and
>> >>> thus easily can generate a list of all users.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose to make /_user/_changes also admin-only befor=
e
>> we
>> >>> ship 1.2.0. Again, I'm happy to revisit and make things configurable
>> down
>> >>> the road.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Note that the information that a particular user is registered is
>> >>> leaked (a user can't sign up with a username that is already taken,
>> from
>> >>> that it can be deduced that that particular username is already
>> >>> registered). This is in line with most signup systems. Making
>> >>> /_users/_changes admin-only doesn't prevent all leakage of what user=
s
>> have
>> >>> signed up, but it stops bulk-leakage of *all* users in one swoop.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What do you think?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Cheers
>> >>>>>> Jan
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>