+1 for supporting 1.8.5 exclusively from trunk (i.e, 1.2) upwards.
Leave couchjs as is on 1.0.x and 1.1.x

B.


On 2 April 2011 02:59, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Mozilla released a SM 1.8.5 source distribution this morning [1].
>> We've been getting requests from various places to upgrade our couchjs
>> to use this newer version for a couple weeks and now that its
>> available, there's no better time to act.
>>
>> As can be expected, this new SpiderMonkey has a fairly significant API
>> change from what we've been using in couchjs. Up until now we've been
>> able to get away with supporting 1.7 and the 1.8.0rc1 tarballs without
>> much hassle. The new API makes this much more difficult. Chris C
>> Coulson from Ubuntu has been working on a patch that'll allow us to
>> work with 1.8.5 and (IIRC) should work with the 1.8.0rc1 but it
>> includes some extra gnarly ifdef magic to make things work.
>>
>> So my question is what versions of SM should we support? I would
>> probably vote to drop everything in favor of 1.8.5 and no longer
>> support the older APIs. There is a possibility of just having two
>> versions of couchjs that we choose at compile time. But from what I've
>> heard and seen, we're basically not going to be able to have a single
>> compile time ifdef decision on versions without some super screw code.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> [1] http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/js/
>
> Well, we need to continue to support SM 1.7 on the 1.0.x branch, and if that 
> means 1.0.x doesn't work with SM 1.8.5 then so be it.  For 1.1.0 I'd want to 
> know what the availability of SM 1.8.5 in various package repositories looks 
> like before dropping support for SM 1.7. Ideally I'd like to ship at least 
> one version of CouchDB that works with both SM 1.7 and SM 1.8.5, but I've 
> seen Chris' work in COUCHDB-1078 and I don't relish the thought of making 
> that any more complicated than it already is.
>
> Trunk can drop support for SM 1.7.
>
> Adam
>
>

Reply via email to