couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nuno Job <>
Subject Re: Nano and Futon CLI
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:03:27 GMT
Hi Alexander,

Responses inline:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Alexander Shorin <> wrote:

> - Why do you want to contribute these projects?

The main motivation is just to help CouchDB. When I started these projects
they were an hobby. These days there's enough use in nano's part to justify
a closer, more organized attention. My lack of commitment to the project is
not helping.

Personal reasons: None.

> - What's your expectation on their life under CouchDB flag?

None, anything is better than current. Just trying to help, but as for the
whole project I have no stakes in it. I love couchdb as a user, and I think
it will continue this way.

> - How your contribution will improve CouchDB user experience?

I believe having a standard way to connect to CouchDB would be extremely
beneficial: WE have came far enough that the requirements are well
understood and libraries that have been around for a while include most
fixes that companies use in production. The second reason is progress:

(1) nano could natively support multiple versions of couch by defining the
version of the compatible api you want to connect
(2) nano could easily support extensions for apis like cloudant
(3) nano could easily support the browser

however this requires effort and dedication to maintence. Both things I
can't do in my free time and the project would be much more suited to do.

As for futoncli, it just seems like a nice feature to deliver for folks
that use couch. It's pretty complete and has `raw` mode, hence people can
even script with it. If it was delivered by default, people could easily
create easier shell scripts with couch on any installation.

> - Don't your fear that this will hurt them? ASF has more strict rules
> on contributions and commit bits and also in CouchDB team there are
> not much nano/futoncli active contributors (anyone?) to continue their
> maintaining.

It's a valid point, but I'm completely out of it and I have no opinion. To
the best of my knowledge no contributor of nano is a apache member.

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