couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Git Repository Creation
Date Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:07:59 GMT

Ditto, can’t think of a thing worth having post-R14 to take the leap given the numerous
broken releases. I had forgotten that monitoring was broken in R16B01. Good grief.

B.

On 23 Jan 2014, at 07:03, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oops, that should've have been "re-add support".
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis
> <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Surprised that no one has mentioned that monitors were broken in R16B01.
>> 
>> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-bugs/2013-July/003670.html
>> 
>> While I do agree with general points on both sides of the minimum
>> Erlang requirement I think its important to note that even Basho is
>> staying with R15B01 at the moment. I haven't heard of anything major
>> on R16B0(2|3) but given that Basho isn't running that I wonder if they
>> found something else there.
>> 
>> I'm also intrigued by the reason that projects have dropped R14
>> support. I don't know of anything super majorly awesome in newer
>> releases so I'd wonder if it wouldn't be possible with a bit of effort
>> to read support to upstream projects.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM, 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -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
View raw message