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 fdmanana@gmail.com designates
 209.85.161.54 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jlU40/BENOzU/iB7twt3VB4KLUbur1zRjtsOz1RLDxh6Mrs3EjyONoQRivpMtyMmjs
         yegrjRvA9mhaEK98cQiMs+nZJAOBAU5ag/siskr7Z5vo8ka7rCabcPgGpz8PU+4P4jeq
         XfkrwvWz0Bnsd1JqiJZU/H63SofdkLoW753Ls=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: fdmanana@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=d8dD8X4QB20=OHBfisq_RNq==85_dpxfeZa8_@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<AANLkTimehMnQE+h9u3yFORxS3Fydc2wde14vA5We3Lee@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikvvpKVo3BtkSRs1dNGjuGrTUU7-jU1-d2maje9@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=d8dD8X4QB20=OHBfisq_RNq==85_dpxfeZa8_@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:14:02 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimp8n19k20ULyqsygtw+5bPMsn8VAmGeyKRZvHG@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: minimum required Erlang version
From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm not sure if bumping to R13B04 is appropriate, since many Linux
distributions (Ubuntu for e.g.) ship with older R13 releases.
Therefore I would bump to R13B.

Regarding NIF extensions, are we planning to have any by 1.2?

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> 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/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c82875=
1ed22418d7f).
>>>
>>> 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.c=
om> 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.or=
g> 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. =C2=
=A0Do we have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04? =C2=
=A0That 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?=
 =C2=A0I know we don't use NIFs in 1.1.x, but it'd be nice to limit the num=
ber of times we have to bump.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's nothing major that I remember in the R13 series. Maybe a f=
ew
>>>>>>>> bug fixes or something, but I'd have to look.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The major NIF jump was with R14. For instance, integrating Emonk r=
equires 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 un=
til
>>>>>>> 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 N=
IF
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


--=20
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
=C2=A0Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
=C2=A0That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."