couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] A direction from a non-contributor
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2019 02:32:35 GMT
Hi Chintan,

On 2019-07-10 12:40 p.m., Chintan Mishra wrote:
> On 10/07/19 9:55 PM, Chintan Mishra wrote:
>> On 09/07/19 9:33 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
>>> Hi Chintan,
>>> Reading through your proposal, I have one main point to make.
>>> At the Apache Software Foundation, the people who lead the projects are
>>> the people who do the work on them. We use the wrong word "meritocracy"
>>> to explain this principle; a better word would be "do-ocracy."
>>> That means that your project can completely proceed on its own if it
>>> wants to; the only thing over which you're not in control is whether
>>> that project gets to call itself CouchDB or not. That decision is
>>> reached by the people who have built CouchDB into what it is today.
>> I appreciate that you shared these links. I now understand what I have 
>> to do next.
>>> -----
>>> On that last point, there's a lot that would need to be done for you to
>>> convince the PMC that your vision is the one, true future of CouchDB.
>>> What you propose is both a significant rewrite, as well as requiring an
>>> entirely new set of skills from the developer base (Rust, MQTT, Kotlin,
>>> Swift).
>> From Slack conversations, it appears the community has some 
>> inclination towards building a Rust based CouchDB some day. As for 
>> other technologies those changes are not happening today. I do not 
>> propose to start with all the changes at once. Storage engine is a 
>> good place to start.

Have you considered implementing your goals without doing an entire 
rewrite at the same time? One of the reasons the FoundationDB project is 
likely to proceed is that, by and large, most of the code is being 
retained. Rewriting the entire thing in Rust presents a very large 
number of challenges, not the least of which is finding developers 
experienced both in Rust as well as the minute details of how CouchDB 
works today.

I'm not saying a full rewrite isn't possible, but it does make your 
proposal significantly harder to achieve.

So my counterquestion to you is: if a rewrite wasn't possible, how would 
you re-work this proposal so that CouchDB could be made more friendly 
for IoT?


View raw message