On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 17:59, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > If the default behavior remains the same I'm +1 on putting this on 1.2. I think it's good practice to ship new features earlier, turned off by default, with a warning about it being experimental in the news/changelog. I'd rather get this in front of users sooner. > > > > > 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. > Agree with Chris. +1 I'd also like to see COUCHDB-1060. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1060
