Oops, that should've have been "re-add support".
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@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 <chewbra...@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 <bchesn...@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 <rnew...@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 <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <d...@jsonified.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> On 22 January 2014 13:23, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Robert Samuel Newson >>> > >>> <rnew...@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. >>> > >>> > >>>
