couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: Unexpected response for ?open_revs=all
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:07:13 GMT
I'm not saying the wiki is useless, not by a long way, but it isn't
completely accurate. While I agree that that's unachievable, anyway
can, and does, edit the wiki based on their understanding of the code,
and that isn't always good. Worse, accurate statements can be made
less so over time.

All I'm advocating is that the committers on the project, including
myself, further commit ourselves to produce as complete and accurate a
description of the CouchDB API as we can, same as we try to produce
bug free code and good tests. Contributions from the outside are
welcome and encouraged, same as they are for bug fixes.

So, I'm not slamming the wiki, I'm slapping the committers (again,
myself included) for not yet including docs as part of our release
cycle already. :)


On 13 July 2011 18:32, Jens Alfke <> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Robert Newson wrote:
>> It's clear that the wiki serves poorly as an official source of
>> documentation. This is not surprising given that's not where their
>> strengths lie.
> Agreed in principle, but the API references pages on the wiki have been extremely useful
to me in both learning & coding. I find it a lot easier to learn from references like
these than from tutorials in books. I’m happy to give back (when appropriate) by fixing
up the wiki docs until they're superseded.
>> There's an effort to create solid documentation that will form part of
>> future releases. They will live under source control with the code
>> base where we can make it part of our routine to ensure their accuracy
>> over time.
> Sounds good! How can I get involved, at least to the extent of reading what exists and
reporting issues?
> Oh, and back to the topic at hand:
>> The ?conflicts=true parameter should be used here instead.
> I’m partial to ?open_revs because it returns the contents of all conflicting revisions
in one call, instead of requiring one or more extra GETs. Is there a way to make ?conflicts
do that too?
> —Jens

View raw message