couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Removing "delayed_commits"
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:40:57 GMT

> On 10 Nov 2014, at 16:11 , Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2014, at 15:17 , Klaus Trainer <klaus_trainer@posteo.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey Jan,
>>> 
>>> you didn't provide an argument, so I can only guess: Do you think that
>>> we shouldn't tackle that right now, as it would potentially delay the
>>> 2.0 release?
>> 
>> One of my goals for CouchDB 2.0 is that people upgrading form 1.0 and
>> especially people who continue use CouchDB in a single-node scenario
>> have an easy time. Just breaking more things because we happen to be
>> bumping a version number is not a good motivation. Especially in our
>> new world of avoiding attaching marketing connotation to major release
>> versions (except 2.0 :), we can release CouchDB 3.0 and 4.0 shortly
>> after 2.0 if it means we break BC in a single way. If we keep BC breaks
>> to a minimum and make every transition up a major version as easy as
>> possible, we don’t run into a Python 3 situation that creates a major
>> schism in the user community that takes a decade to heal.
>> 
>> Let’s not break things because we update the major version number,
>> instead, let’s update the major version number whenever we break
>> back backward compatibility.
> 
> Suddenly, active delayed_commits is what is breaking CouchDB 2.0 - ask
> Russell how long he fight with database migrations from old 1.x to 2.0
> until he found delayed_commits turned on.  Also, I don't think that
> this change is breaking something expect benchmarks speed.

I was referring to the original email that said:

> I'd like to propose that we now (as we're already breaking API
> compatibility with the new major release) go the full way and
> remove that feature entirely.


I generally disagree with that reasoning as outlined above.

I’d be happy to hear more about what problems Russell had, but it’s
the first time that info hits dev@ and it wasn’t brought up in this
thread so far.

Best
Jan
--


Mime
View raw message