I was referring to the 1.2.0 RFC where I was hoping to catch any potential objections such as this. I will let someone else, more familiar with this particular change, take this up.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Noah. When I saw it hit Git, I realized it was a breaking change, > and I asked around. If memory serves, Randall happened to be on at the > time and he asked me the same question you just did. I said I never > saw an RFC email and that's when he realized it was not done publicly. > > I am pleased and grateful for the 1.2 release. It's remarkable! I'll > simply remind the community, don't email a plus-one just because the > unit tests pass. Install your application! Test your application! If > you use _users in your Couch app, this will be the most significant > breaking change since the 0.9 release. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > Did you bring this up on the RFC thread or in private, Jason? > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I would like call a vote for the Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, first > >> round. > >> > >> Documents in the _users database are no longer publicly readable. > >> > >> I understand that there was no public RFC about this due to its > >> security implications? > >> > >> Iris Couch users have been running the 1.2.x beta builds for a few > >> ekes and this is the top point of feedback. People have to rewrite > >> their Couch apps, in particular because most of Chris's projects and > >> examples uses _user to keep public profiles (nickname, Gravatar URL, > >> etc.). > >> > >> I suppose this is old news. The decision is good. It's a documented > >> breaking change. Fine. I hope there isn't blowback though. > >> > >> -- > >> Iris Couch > >> > > > > -- > Iris Couch >
