Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67223 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2009 14:12:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2009 14:12:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 86157 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2009 14:12:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 86120 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2009 14:12:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 86109 invoked by uid 99); 5 Feb 2009 14:12:49 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:12:49 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.97.50.139] (HELO jan.prima.de) (83.97.50.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:12:41 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] (f053000236.adsl.alicedsl.de [::ffff:78.53.0.236]) (AUTH: LOGIN jan, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by jan.prima.de with esmtp; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:12:17 +0000 Message-Id: <5EED4DD8-5CCD-4A01-AA3D-3731D17BC295@apache.org> From: Jan Lehnardt To: dev@couchdb.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Transactional _bulk_docs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:11:45 +0100 References: <7A158DD5-18E6-41EC-89C2-305824536A7A@gmail.com> <064D062D-9293-441E-B425-6FD2B5264E0E@pobox.com> <988C8AAF-E151-40FB-9E1A-000876FE3489@gmail.com> <182D5B6E-D179-470A-8638-B54E3DEF2747@pobox.com> <11E11144-004D-45B8-A503-88FD471953D7@apache.org> <9C8B5F07-856F-495D-AD91-FCA5AB5E31FF@pobox.com> <4E507D2E-88F9-4591-B721-F4343ACA9A9E@apache.org> <393666B7-8444-4D23-A2BA-AD59652A96AE@sauria.com> <0D17D25F-7E88-4F19-96A9-62FC81E2DFC5@pobox.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:05, Robert Dionne wrote: > I'm not very familiar with the ASF "process", excuse my ignorance, > but I find the IRC enormously useful and find mailing list threads > can be too unwieldy. Check out http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html for more about The ASF Way/. Cheers Jan -- > I guess it's because I'm not a fan of top down design. I see the > code itself as the design, and the debugging, reworking, and > documenting of the code as the construction phase. > > Best regards, > > Bob > > Robert Dionne > Chief Bittwiddler > dionne@dionne-associates.com > 203.231.9961 > > > > On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> [sending second time, as I see my first is stuck in moderation, and >> I want to reply in a timely manner] >> >> Sure, ideally. >> >> But you can't have "everyone" together at the same time on IRC, >> where at the ASF, we define "everyone" to be, well, "everyone", not >> you and the 4 others on the PMC. >> >> I see 579 people on the user list. I see 294 people on the dev >> list. Just focusing on the dev list, that's 290 people, or 98.6% >> of people supposedly interested in CouchDB development, that had >> zero opportunity to see, review and participate in the discussion. >> Further, there's now zero chance that any future project >> participant can look back to understand design decision and >> philosophy. No institutional memory. Your goal, besides building >> a great software project, should be to get the community to the >> point where you can step back and do other things w/o material >> effect on the community, and that requires information like this to >> be somewhere accessible. >> >> And unlike Ted, I don't agree that a pointer to an IRC log is >> sufficient to represent a "done decision", and he may not have >> meant that anyway. Sure, I can see a chat starting on IRC about a >> topic, but I'd hope that one person would force the move from IRC >> to the mail list - and at that point, maybe posting a pointer to >> the *initial* discussion log would be useful. And after that, >> discussion is on the mail list. >> >> I think IRC logs are a very poor substitute to mail traffic (and >> yes, I grok the downside of async communications). A primary one >> reason that they are very "in the moment" - if you are in the >> conversation, it's easy to stay in, but after, when things cool and >> the context of the moment isn't there, it's neigh impossible. You >> also can't hit reply and quote a piece for others to see and >> discuss, further broadening the discussion. >> >> What got me engaged on this wasn't the decision itself (only >> because it was a secret decision), but -like Ted - the mode of >> operation. It seemed that a very dedicated, engaged and interested >> community member had to privately petition the PMC for redress on a >> technical decision that none of us had any awareness of, nor a >> chance to review. And IMO, from a guy that probably should be a >> committer and PMC member to boot! >> >> (By the way - from my count, not all PMC members are even on the >> PMC's private@ list, so I have *no clue* where project private >> discussion - like new committer candidates - are even discussed....) >> >> geir >> >> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Damien Katz wrote: >> >>> Ideally yes, but real time communication with everyone together is >>> damn useful. >>> >>> -Damien >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Ted Leung wrote: >>> >>>> Uh, project decisions are supposed to be made in the public >>>> mailing lists... >>>> >>>> Ted >>>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> This decision was discussed and made on IRC. >>>>> >>>>> -Damien >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> can you point me to a reference to where the PMC made this >>>>>> decision? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm interested in the subject for it's own sake, and I'm also >>>>>> interested in figuring out where decisions are made in this >>>>>> project, since I didn't see this one go by on a mail list. >>>>>> >>>>>> geir >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Damien Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Geir, there was a decision made by the PMCs to change the >>>>>>> transaction model to support partitioned databases. It is a >>>>>>> change I am currently working on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Damien >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and original question #2? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> geir >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Antony Blakey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2009, at 12:02 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) where is this being forwarded from ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I sent it to the PMC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Antony Blakey >>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd >>>>>>>>> Ph: 0438 840 787 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me >>>>>>>>> one with everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for >>>>>>>>> change. The vendor says, "Change comes from within". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >