couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: minimum required Erlang version
Date Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:05:57 GMT
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).

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 <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <> wrote:
>>>> 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 bump.
>>>> 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 R14.
>>> 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