https://github.com/bumptech/stud
:D On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Mutton, James <[email protected]> wrote: > functioning ssl? > > </JamesM> > > > > > On 1/22/14 11:07 PM, "Robert Samuel Newson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>Ditto, can¹t 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oops, that should've have been "re-add support". >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis >>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>><[email protected]> 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 >>>>><[email protected]>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 >>>>>><[email protected] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could have phrased it better, so I¹ll 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 NIF¹s >>>>>>>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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Dave Cottlehuber >>>>>>>><[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 January 2014 13:23, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Robert Samuel Newson >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >
