incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: minimum required Erlang version
Date Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:28:44 GMT
I did and it was rewritten upstream
(https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed22418d7f).

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.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.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.  Do we have a compelling
reason for supporting anything below R13B04?  That 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?
 I 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 requires
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.
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message