Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert.newson@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=nIfpQ34tOjqgzOm3O7DiBjGp0PNAb0+sb6tekWPlunxFqVuxN+0O7b5Ozmbl2nJzD0
         HKEjNB27YESuQ9XRmd7b3p5gHea0FvRvBIXjalpcDqQwBm0LMThaD74kqi00FZ/+ynZR
         MOuOsRfx3aypfjdh0nFEb8yZ6CmZcUmu4vdfg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9FBABF91-E294-4CD2-A062-A29950594D32@apache.org>
References: <0EBAED4E-6F42-499D-869E-75B539107B88@apache.org>
	<AANLkTinUpcof-+x-WFwtZPWtnwD-7ZMDsL7q3fWCWcdy@mail.gmail.com>
	<9D0F1257-2CD8-401D-A411-00A2547A3F54@apache.org>
	<AANLkTimBCqxqBUbZpgBEA3mY1YznWQLTuiwDG8brfeo=@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikSZng-rnVAm3R1G0Z5BRRFvSQ73JPDBCU_GmAP@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimY0=r7L3X13CaUpFJUFgG7kdv3vzYzgupGu98q@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=6ozCKnKTLhxZYAMfZmjMfaTr6-z7szg4_ySyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9FBABF91-E294-4CD2-A062-A29950594D32@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:28:44 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimehMnQE+h9u3yFORxS3Fydc2wde14vA5We3Lee@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: minimum required Erlang version
From: Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I did and it was rewritten upstream
(https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed2=
2418d7f).

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.co=
m> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.co=
m> 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. =A0Do we=
 have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04? =A0That rel=
ease 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? =
=A0I 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 requ=
ires 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.
>>>>
>>>
>
>