couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Git Repository Creation
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:20:15 GMT
Robert,

I understood what you meant.

Imo the best thing would be creating a check list of the things that
prevent to go to a version greater than R14. Can you share the one you have
inside cloudant ? It will help us to reach a consensus also later to make
sure we can fix them in next Erlang releases.

This is not that I want absolutely use the latest. If we stand on an old
and unmaintained release then we should know exactly why and check from
time to time if we still need to stay on this version.

Thanks!

- benoit





On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>wrote:

>
> I could have phrased it better, so I’ll do so now;
>
> R14 is still widely used in production and is very stable. R15 and R16
> have known stability problems that affect deployments using NIF’s that can
> potentially run for longer than a millisecond before returning control to
> the scheduler.
>
> I am not blackmailing the project but I hope you can understand how I feel
> about your suggestion to remove the ability for Cloudant to continue
> working after we are making such a large contribution and, further, seeking
> to move our active development to couchdb itself.
>
> B.
>
> On 22 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 January 2014 13:23, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
> >>> <rnewson@apache.org>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Benoit,
> >>>>
> >>>> Cloudant requires R14 support, it would mean our contribution to
> couchdb
> >>>> becomes useless to us and we could not contribute further.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you using blackmail? Is this the position of the Cloudant company?
> >>
> >> Hi Benoit,
> >>
> >> Your comment reads like an ad hominem attack, and I don't think Bob's
> >> point, nor Bob, nor Cloudant, deserved that.
> >>
> >
> > My questions stand. The way it is formulated, and that's not the first
> > time, is not that clear at all.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message