You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org> on 2009/02/24 04:08:00 UTC
Re: [RESULT]: Accept newline patch into CouchDB for 0.9 (Was: Re:
VOTE: accept newline patch into CouchDB for 0.9)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Christopher Lenz <cm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Providing a reason for your -1 on accepting the patch would be a good start
> ;)
>
> Personally, I don't think this whole thing is very important, but I don't
> see any harm in adding the trailing newline right now.
>
I'm basically of the same mind. It's not very important to me either
way. I don't use command line clients much (oh and my bash-prompt has
a newline in it anyway...) so I lean slightly toward the "be like
Google and others" side of the fence.
If I understand correctly, Damien's objections have to do with the
interaction between a trailing newline and a potential future
canonical JSON format. He may have a point but we'd likely have to
change other things in the future if we wanted to use that canonical
format anyway. (Or maybe I'm mischaracterizing his old argument...)
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com
Re: [RESULT]: Accept newline patch into CouchDB for 0.9 (Was: Re: VOTE: accept newline patch into CouchDB for 0.9)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 24 Feb 2009, at 04:08, Chris Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Christopher Lenz <cm...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Providing a reason for your -1 on accepting the patch would be a
>> good start
>> ;)
>>
>> Personally, I don't think this whole thing is very important, but I
>> don't
>> see any harm in adding the trailing newline right now.
>>
>
> I'm basically of the same mind. It's not very important to me either
> way. I don't use command line clients much (oh and my bash-prompt has
> a newline in it anyway...) so I lean slightly toward the "be like
> Google and others" side of the fence.
>
> If I understand correctly, Damien's objections have to do with the
> interaction between a trailing newline and a potential future
> canonical JSON format. He may have a point but we'd likely have to
> change other things in the future if we wanted to use that canonical
> format anyway. (Or maybe I'm mischaracterizing his old argument...)
Quick straw-poll whether this should be removed from the 0.9 (0.10)
blocking list?
+1
Cheers
Jan
--