couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <>
Subject Re: CouchDB 2.0: breaking the backward compatibility
Date Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:17:59 GMT

Since we follow semantic versioning, the only meaning behind naming our next release 2.0 and
not 1.7 is that it contains backwards incompatible changes.

It’s for the CouchDB community as a whole to determine what is and isn’t in a release.
Certainly merging in bigcouch and rcouch are a huge part of the 2.0 release, but they aren’t
necessarily the only things. If they hadn’t changed the API in incompatible ways, they wouldn’t
cause a major version bump.

With that said then, I’m interested in hearing what else, besides the two merges, we feel
we want to take on in our first major revision bump in approximately forever? At minimum,
I would like to see a change that allows us to use versions of spidermonkey released after
1.8.5, whatever that change might be.


On 13 Jul 2014, at 20:31, Joan Touzet <> wrote:

> Improving the view server protocol is a great idea, but it is appropriate
> for a 2.0 timeframe? I would think it would make more sense in a 3.0
> timeframe, given 2.0 is all about merging forks, not writing new features
> entirely from scratch.
> -Joan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:52:40 AM
> Subject: Re: CouchDB 2.0: breaking the backward compatibility
> Adding mvcc for _security is a great idea (happily, Cloudant have done so very recently,
so I will be pulling that work over soon).
> A better view server protocol is also a great idea.
> On 13 Jul 2014, at 13:13, Samuel Williams <> wrote:
>> On 13/07/14 23:47, Alexander Shorin wrote:
>>> Our view server is compiles functions on each view index update
>>> instead of reusing inner cache. This is because of out-dated protocol:
>>> others design function are works differently from views. While it's
>>> good to change and improve query server protocol completely, this task
>>> requires more time to be done. We should have a least plan B to do
>>> small steps in good direction.
>> As already suggested, here is my proposal for 2.0 view/query server:
>> I welcome people to suggest improvements/changes/ideas.
>> Kind regards,
>> Samuel

View raw message