couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: minimum required Erlang version
Date Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:57:51 GMT
righto.

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I vote for just deleting the eunit bits in our packaged version. Its
> not like we use them. And I'd rather delete the eunit code rather than
> grab it as a dependency (and then deal with figuring out what to do
> when there's an installed version or not or should be but a distro has
> stripped it out).
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did and it was rewritten upstream
>> (https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed22418d7f).
>>
>> It's after the release we have so we have a few options;
>>
>> 1) Upgrade to a newer version.
>> 2) Backport the patch.
>> 3) Add eunit dependency to autotools.
>>
>> I vote for 3 for 1.1 and then upgrade and revert that when mochiweb
>> makes a release with the fix.
>>
>> B.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message