Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91049 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2009 12:58:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2009 12:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 9610 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2009 12:58:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 9576 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2009 12:58:20 -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 9565 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2009 12:58:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:58:20 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of antony.blakey@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.170] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:58:11 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so2746700wfc.29 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:57:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date :references:x-mailer; bh=kEhjYu2BKZKUkEfpHbWENA0SxI69GX30wQfUTO6cf4o=; b=E24XGppSlh15u50KdLy4L66XY8osgM0SsJTlxPOciCHFL6lR3sykWWfx1KuTA+TUpq l/+S1igyX5rSnU8X9PjQiAusbE6I4Xbp6JNzC+mePXiwTqcApZUJw+cY4ZSdTUU/nMcl aM9fDHcsLVNZAcTBWpNZB7bxIaYhSEvjRSWwI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer; b=lek29MdTjHym7SPR0iErtzTIy2F7hZ3fGUKrb1FzkUhatGZ4D8COtxB6T9nWeBlj1I ElGr5PH59Rmx7+l4V3JognSQorR0hpw/8P66qDC4uHbTgEBv55EBtTBr6TkYM3876L7G UEKNjvFBjJRLNAt8YsfEUOLpAmLfmHbIHRtSI= Received: by 10.142.135.13 with SMTP id i13mr2912979wfd.217.1233752269858; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:57:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.16? (ppp121-45-202-232.lns10.adl2.internode.on.net [121.45.202.232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm12422694wff.52.2009.02.04.04.57.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:57:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <7A158DD5-18E6-41EC-89C2-305824536A7A@gmail.com> From: Antony Blakey To: dev@couchdb.apache.org 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: Fwd: Transactional _bulk_docs Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:27:45 +1030 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Begin forwarded message: > Gentlemen, > > I'm really hanging out on this issue. So far Damien has said that > the transactional group-operation is definitely being removed, > whilst Chris has said absolutely that no decision has been made. > > This has serious implications for me, because my code assumes a > transactional _bulk_docs implementation. > > If it's being left as is, or simply being renamed, then I can move > forward. If it's being removed, then I'm going to have to maintain a > private fork, because I presume that a decision to remove it rather > than rename it means that you wouldn't accept a patch that simply > adds that code under a different name (otherwise, why remove it when > you could just rename it?). > > Having to maintain a private fork has other serious implications for > me. > > Is there some other way I need to approach this to get a resolution? > > Thanks, Antony Blakey ------------- CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd Ph: 0438 840 787 Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back. -- Steven Wright