You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> on 2010/12/07 23:38:00 UTC
minimum required Erlang version
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
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
Bumped this on the 1.1.x branch with Benoit's concerns in mind.
http://www.erlang.org/download_release/4 has a scary warning about
anything less than R2.
Didn't make any decision on the NIF 1.2 issue, so that's still on the table.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 07:28, Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think it would be worth to probe the users' mailing list about this as well.
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Filipe David Manana
>>> <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> R13B01 seem the one used on some distri actually yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding NIF extensions, are we planning to have any by 1.2?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is the project of using emonk eventually . davisp ?
>>>
>>
>> emonk requires R14 NIF's so I don't think it'll be in trunk for quite awhile.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Filipe David Manana,
> fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
>
> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
I think it would be worth to probe the users' mailing list about this as well.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Filipe David Manana
>> <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> R13B01 seem the one used on some distri actually yes
>>
>>>
>>> Regarding NIF extensions, are we planning to have any by 1.2?
>>>
>>
>> There is the project of using emonk eventually . davisp ?
>>
>
> emonk requires R14 NIF's so I don't think it'll be in trunk for quite awhile.
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Filipe David Manana
> <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> R13B01 seem the one used on some distri actually yes
>
>>
>> Regarding NIF extensions, are we planning to have any by 1.2?
>>
>
> There is the project of using emonk eventually . davisp ?
>
emonk requires R14 NIF's so I don't think it'll be in trunk for quite awhile.
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Filipe David Manana
<fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.
R13B01 seem the one used on some distri actually yes
>
> Regarding NIF extensions, are we planning to have any by 1.2?
>
There is the project of using emonk eventually . davisp ?
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
Nothing has been planned for 1.2. Adam's thought was to just
anticipate that we might use them eventually and so we might want to
plan ahead with the requirement change to anticipate possibly using
NIFs.
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> righto.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Davis <pa...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 <ja...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Filipe David Manana,
> fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
>
> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> righto.
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Davis <pa...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 <ja...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
righto.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Davis <pa...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 <ja...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <ja...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <ja...@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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 for R13B04.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
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 <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 for R13B04.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>>
>>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
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).
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for R13B04.
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>>
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1 for R13B04.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
>
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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 <ko...@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.
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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
Re: minimum required Erlang version
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@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.