couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Garren Smith <>
Subject Re: Should we continue with FDB RFC's
Date Mon, 18 May 2020 11:49:46 GMT
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.


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
> >

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