That looks like a nice improvement, Mike. Thanks for making the RFC. > One question I had on this is whether RFCs should be frozen once approved, or > whether I should look to keep it up to date with changes in the code? The > Bylaws don't really cover whether they are living documents or records of > what the community agreed on at a point in time.
It could make sense to keep them updated with major changes to the design, along with the documentation. They are in the main code repository so that should make it easier to keep them in sync. We could add version updates / notes to the RFC sections to make the design evolution more apparent. IETF uses "updates #ref" or "obsoletes #ref" format https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-4.1.4 with newer ones replacing the older ones. But that might work better for a complete redesign or larger changes. Cheers, -Nick On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:49 AM Mike Rhodes <couc...@dx13.co.uk> wrote: > > All, > > I've added an RFC to introduce covering index functionality to Mango JSON > indexes. It's in a pull request at: > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/4410 > > The aim is to allow users to create index and query combinations that operate > as fast as views when searching for data (as opposed to aggregating it via > reduces). It's a logical extension to my recent fields pushdown PR > (https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/4394). Overall, I'm interested in > addressing some of the low- and mid-hanging query performance fruit within > Mango. > > This work touches more places than the previous work, so I figured that it > was RFC worthy. And it'd be nice not to create a PR with some fatal flaw to > it :D > > One question I had on this is whether RFCs should be frozen once approved, or > whether I should look to keep it up to date with changes in the code? The > Bylaws don't really cover whether they are living documents or records of > what the community agreed on at a point in time. > > Anyway, cheers for having a look, > -- > Mike.
