couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: minimum required Erlang version
Date Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:53:25 GMT
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