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 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:44:03 GMT
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Russell Branca <chewbranca@apache.org>wrote:

> The scheduler collapse problems in R15 and R16 are widely known and not
> resolved. Frankly, as developers of a database, we should strive to provide
> end users with the most reliable and best experience, which in my opinion
> means we should recommend R14B01. There is not a battle tested, reliable
> version of Erlang that has proven to solve the scheduler collapse problems,
> and until that time, I think it's unwise to remove support for R14.
>

mmm isn't it addressed in R15B02 and later ?

OTP-10033 in R5B02 seems directly related. Possibly improved with OTP-10476
in R15B03.

Or you are referring to another issue? Trying to check it.


- benoit



>
> -Russell
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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