couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: minimum required Erlang version
Date Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:11:37 GMT

On 8 Dec 2010, at 00:05, Robert Newson wrote:

> Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a
> build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit
> being a separate and optional package).

Didn't you propose a patch to mochiweb that makes eunit build-optional?


> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>> +1 for R13B04.
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <>
>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <>
>>>>>>> Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support
for R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version.  Do we have a compelling
reason for supporting anything below R13B04?  That release introduces support for recursive
type specifications, which are useful when describing revision trees and JSON objects to dialyzer.
>>>>>>> Regards, Adam
>>>>>> +1 for R13something.
>>>>> Paul, is there a NIF-based argument for a particular R13 release?  I
know we don't use NIFs in 1.1.x, but it'd be nice to limit the number of times we have to
>>>>> Adam
>>>> There's nothing major that I remember in the R13 series. Maybe a few
>>>> bug fixes or something, but I'd have to look.
>>>> The major NIF jump was with R14. For instance, integrating Emonk requires
>>>> Also, NIF's are awesome.
>>> I stand corrected. Out of curiosity I went back and checked the
>>> progression of NIF support. Turns out they're not even available until
>>> R13B03. For some reason I thought the first version was in the last of
>>> the R12's.
>>> Also, in R13B04 there are some noticeable upgrades to things like NIF
>>> function signatures and other bits that would be backwards
>>> incompatible (also, no one uses the version from R13B03 anymore, so if
>>> we wanted to backport something it'd be a major breakage).
>>> So I revise my statement, I'd vote for R13B04 as the minimum. Also, it
>>> has the nice symmetry of relying on the latest R$(MAJOR)B04 Erlang VM
>>> which I declare to be the optimum balance between new features and
>>> stability.

View raw message