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 Wed, 20 May 2020 03:17:03 GMT
Technically, the code still isn't on master yet.


-Joan "can we please merge to master already" Touzet

On 2020-05-19 15:19, Paul Davis wrote:
> Can +1 but its gonna feel really silly when I think about how the code
> is already merged...
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM Joan Touzet <> wrote:
>> 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.
>> -Joan
>> 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
>>>> “system architecture guide” as a living document. I understand that can
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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 <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>> how
>>>>>> we thought it would when writing the RFC. Following that smaller
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> high-level design of each new feature. I would probably prefer that
>>>>>> continue the discussion emails but don't do the RFC unless its a
>>>>>> that a lot of people want to be involved in the design.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Garren

View raw message