incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alon Keren <alon.ke...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed!
Date Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:27:42 GMT
Thank you guys for making this poll, and for publishing the minutes and
audio.

I've voted, and it would be really nice to have this (or other) list as a
wish-list that couchdb users could continuously update.

  Alon

On 16 April 2012 10:07, Mike Kimber <mkimber@kana.com> wrote:

> Good on you for trying something different. I cast 100 votes and then
> figured that was enough. If you want my top 5 then they are:
>
> 1. Chained Views
> 2. Richer Map Reduce
> 3. Simpler Query
> 4. Performance (high update low query/read) i.e. incremental map reduce
> 5. Documentation
>
> We use CouchDB fro analytic, hence the bias above :-)
>
> Keep up the good work
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Newson [mailto:rnewson@apache.org]
> Sent: 14 April 2012 18:30
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Cc: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Help shape the future of CouchDB: your voice needed!
>
> The feedback on the mailing lists, IRC and twitter has been very
> helpful, thanks everyone for the responses!
>
> I'm going to take this feedback and provide a condensed list of
> features. I will write up each item on our wiki, then we'll reset the
> poll so that more folks can vote knowledgeably on the features. I
> suspect it'll be a couple of hours, so I'll post here when it's up.
>
> Thanks!
> B.
>
> On 14 April 2012 17:30, Bob Dionne <dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
> > I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most
> of these features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to
> internal refactoring concerns and so forth.
> >
> > It might help for everyone to see the list of features (here's a cleaned
> up version I got from BobN) [1]. As Benoit suggests, we need to
> sort/categorize them first before attaching priorities.
> >
> > One thing we might think of is the areas they might be grouped in, along
> the line of teams as Jan suggested at the summit.
> >
> > I'm happy to maintain this list as we drill down into the specifics,
> summarize email threads, and IRC chats. Some of these, .eg. moving metadata
> out of the docs, could easily require a lot of detailed discussion as they
> hit many areas of the code, so we should flesh out the details.
> >
> > It was great to meet everyone finally, I think we accomplished a whole
> lot. Thanks to Cloudant, Bocoup, and others for hosting, beers, etc.. and a
> big thanks to Sam Bisbee and Joan Touzet for detailed notes and general cat
> herding.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > [1]
> https://github.com/bdionne/couchdb/blob/master/feature-list-from-summit.md
> >
> >
> > On Apr 14, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Klaus Trainer wrote:
> >
> >> <DISCLAIMER>
> >> I know CouchDB's internals to some degree and even contributed a few
> >> bits to its codebase a while ago (and still follow its development to
> >> some degree). However, I see myself primarily as a CouchDB user. I've
> >> been using it successfully not only in my own pet projects, but also
> >> together with a small team in a consulting project for a client. I do
> >> have experience when it comes to explaining CouchDB's ideas, concepts,
> >> and how it can be used in practice to both technical and non-technical
> >> people.
> >> </DISCLAIMER>
> >>
> >>
> >> My initial reaction to this web page was very positive (hey, great to
> >> have a collection of great new features that we can vote upon and
> >> implement!). After voting and having had some sleep on it, I'm pretty
> >> sure that it's not suitable, at least not in this way, though. The main
> >> problem that I have with it is that I'm quite convinced that if we try
> >> to implement the features corresponding to their score on the results
> >> page (http://www.allourideas.org/couchdb2012/results?more=true), we
> will
> >> either fail executing for some reason, or (the worse case), succeed and
> >> have given CouchDB a more catchy list of features instead of having it
> >> made a better piece of software. Please let me explain the issues that
> >> seem important to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> The main problem with that survey is that it does neither ask nor answer
> >> the questions that are actually important if we want to make CouchDB an
> >> even better piece of software. I collected three main questions:
> >>
> >> 1. What problem, or rather what type of problems does that feature
> >> solve?
> >>
> >> 2. What are the implications and tradeoffs for the different types of
> >> stakeholders that the feature brings with it?
> >>    - For me as a CouchDB user, how will that feature affect me when I'm
> >> using CouchDB?
> >>    - For me as a third-party developer, how will that feature affect my
> >> work on CouchDB modules/plugins/tools?
> >>    - For me as a CouchDB core developer, how will that feature affect
> >> my work on CouchDB?
> >>    - For me as as CouchDB package maintainer, how will that feature
> >> affect my work on packaging/maintaining CouchDB?
> >>    - For me as as Sysadmin / CouchDB operator, how will that feature
> >> affect me on operating CouchDB?
> >>
> >> 3. How is or how can an existing problem be solved without having the
> >> feature implemented in CouchDB directly? (That is, are there
> >> modules/plugins/tools available that help me solve that problem. If not,
> >> how difficult would it be to create one?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Furthermore, I've got one additional question that, although it likely
> >> helps understanding a feature, however is not as important as the three
> >> above:
> >>
> >> -> What are the reasons that the feature has not already been
> >> implemented?
> >>
> >> This question is probably easier to answer when having a list of
> >> potential answers, for instance:
> >>
> >> * Only very few users have that issue, and most users will likely never
> >> have to deal with it.
> >> * Most users are confronted with that issue at some time, but it's so
> >> trivial to solve it without having the feature in CouchDB anyway.
> >> * It's hard to implement because (although feasible) it's just so much
> >> work.
> >> * It's hard to implement because its highly complex and very uncertain
> >> if it can be brought into CouchDB anyway.
> >> * Although easy to implement or already implemented, it hasn't been
> >> and/or won't be accepted by the CouchDB core developers for some reason.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 20:24 -0400, Joan Touzet wrote:
> >>> Thanks to everyone who participated in the CouchDB summit in Boston
> this
> >>> week! In case you didn't know, the (25 pages!) of meeting minutes are
> >>> available for review at http://s.apache.org/ndI .
> >>>
> >>> Here's where we need YOUR HELP. During the summit, the participants
> >>> identified 38 key features we think are important for CouchDB's future.
> >>> Please help us RANK these ideas by visiting our All Our Ideas page:
> >>>
> >>>   http://www.allourideas.org/couchdb2012/
> >>>
> >>> All Our Ideas is a free/open source solution for voting based on
> >>> pairwise comparison - think Kittenwar - and is super easy to use.
> >>>
> >>> Please complete as many comparisons as you can; we'd like all the
> >>> feedback we can get. We'd be thrilled if each of you did at least 100
> >>> comparisons.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again for your help in determining the future of Apache CouchDB!
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message