On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 12, 2011, at 18:07 , Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> >>>> The fact that we branch 1.2.x won't mean we can't get more tickets in >>>> there, it's just to unblock trunk for post-1.2.x commits. I hope this >>>> makes sense and I hope you all agree. >>> >>> How are we going to stop a repeat of the 1.0 release branch "kitchen sink" >>> problems? >> >> I'd like everybody to suggest their wish for 1.2.x and then agree with this >> group on how much of the resulting list we can actually get into the branch >> in a reasonable amount of time :) >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> > > I would like to put COUCHDB-431 in 1.2 , the last version is coming > later today. (I'm currentlly testing it)
I agree cross domain XHR options would be useful. I haven't had a chance to dig in, but there does seem to be some question about the right way to implement. I'd be ok to save COUCHDB-431 for 1.3 as CORS is not a mainstream feature of the web (yet). > > I'm -1 for COUCHDB-1238. Since we are about to change the way we > handle the users, I think it's better to wait for this one rather > than introducing another big dependancy on this user db. I don't think the user db is going anywhere, at least not in the 1.x timeframe. We are talking about ways to make it easier to work with and more secure, and I support that. Regardless, the COUCHDB-1238 is something that is useful to anyone using the user db and does not put a burden on folks who are not. For instance, I am building an app that uses this feature to connect your phone to the cloud, without the user ever having to specify a password. Chris > > Apart that , I'm ok for the trunk like it is. > > - benoît > -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couchbase.com
