Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E9E89107DA for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 04:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 42333 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2013 04:25:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 42289 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2013 04:25:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 42280 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2013 04:25:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 04:25:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jens@couchbase.com designates 206.225.164.28 as permitted sender) Received: from [206.225.164.28] (HELO EXHUB020-1.exch020.serverdata.net) (206.225.164.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 04:25:47 +0000 Received: from EXVMBX020-1.exch020.serverdata.net ([169.254.4.151]) by EXHUB020-1.exch020.serverdata.net ([206.225.164.28]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:25:24 -0800 From: Jens Alfke To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:25:23 -0800 Subject: Re: overwrite document without revision? Thread-Topic: overwrite document without revision? Thread-Index: Ac7dA7Vb034DqD0wTt6r9PUBsKBajw== Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Ryan Mohr wrote: > Couldn't you do this with _bulk_docs and new_edits:false? This would add a new revision, but it'd be a new roots in the revision tree= (i.e. a sibling not a child of the previous revision.) This would essentia= lly create a conflict, and it would then be a toss-up which revision would = be considered the current one. You don=92t want to do this. =97Jens=