couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <>
Subject Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Date Tue, 19 May 2020 17:28:19 GMT
Looks like the Mango one has the required +1 already.

There's reviews of the map index one by Adam, Paul, and Mike (Rhodes) 
but neither have explicitly +1'ed. Can any of you get to this?

I'd rather not be the deciding +1 right now, too much else on my plate 
to give this the attention it deserves for that - but I have skimmed it.


On 2020-05-18 7:49, Garren Smith wrote:
> Great thanks for the feedback. Its good to know that they are still
> considered useful. I've updated my mango and map index RFC's to match the
> current implementations.
> I would like to merge them in.
> Cheers
> Garren
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joan Touzet <> wrote:
>> The intent of the RFCs was to give people a place to look at what's
>> being done, comment on the implementation decisions, and to form the
>> basis for eventual documentation.
>> I think they've been relatively successful on the first two pieces, but
>> it sounds like they've fallen behind, especially because we have quite a
>> few languishing PRs over in the couchdb-documentation repo.
>> My hope had been that those PRs would land much faster - even if they
>> were WIPs - and would get updated regularly with new PRs.
>> Is that too onerous of a request?
>> I agree with Adam that the level of detail doesn't have to be there in
>> great detail when it comes to implementation decisions. It only really
>> needs to be there in detail for API changes, so we have good source
>> material for the eventual documentation side of things. Since 4.0 is
>> meant to be largely API compatible with 3.0, I hope this is also in-line
>> with expectations.
>> -Joan "engineering, more than anything, means writing it down" Touzet
>> On 2020-05-13 8:53 a.m., Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>> I do find them useful and would be glad to see us maintain some sort of
>> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can be
>> a challenge when things are evolving quickly, though I also think that if
>> there’s a substantial change to the design from the RFC it could be worth a
>> note to dev@ to call that out.
>>> I imagine we can omit some level of detail from these documents to still
>> capture the main points of the data model and data flows without needing to
>> update them e.g. every time a new field is added to a packed value.
>>> Cheers, Adam
>>>> On May 13, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Garren Smith <> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> The majority of RFC's for CouchDB 4.x have gone stale and I want to know
>>>> what everyone thinks we should do about it? Do you find the RFC's
>> useful?
>>>> So far I've found maintaining the RFC's really difficult. Often we
>> write an
>>>> RFC, then write the code. The code often ends up quite different from
>> how
>>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller code
>>>> changes and improvements to a section moves the codebase even further
>> from
>>>> the RFC design. Do we keep updating the RFC for every change or should
>> we
>>>> leave it at a certain point?
>>>> I've found the discussion emails to be really useful way to explore the
>>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that we
>>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a feature
>>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Garren

View raw message