On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jan Lehnardt<[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Jun 2009, at 06:07, Paul Davis wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Michael McDaniel<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:11:51AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: >>>> >>>> I've gotten tired of looking at compiler warnings when compiling >>>> CouchDB but I figure I'd better ping the list before going through and >>>> just updating everything. >>>> >>>> For reference almost all the errors are about the deprecated regexp >>>> module and deprecated guards. >>>> >>>> The guards look to pretty much be guard -> is_guard type changes. the >>>> is_guard style guards are old enough to be In the Programming Erlang >>>> book so I'm fairly certain they've been around in any version of >>>> Erlang that people are using. The only snag is that I'd be patching >>>> both ibrowse and mochiweb downstream if I just edited them in SVN, so >>>> I'd like thoughts on that. > > You can provide patches to these projects and see if they get accepted. If > they > do, we update our vendor copies. If not, we need to decide if we want to > maintain a patch set (-1). > > I'd not start out maintaining the patch set. >
I agree. I'm not in the mood to keep that up. I'll take a look at getting patches together for ibrowse and mochiweb then. > >>>> As to the regexp -> re module, does anyone know when re made it into >>>> the stdlib? This one actually worries me a bit that if I update the >>>> code I'll need to update the Erlang version requirement. Though I >>>> heard re has been around since R11 or something, so I'm not sure. It >>>> looks like we're requiring R12B (5.6.0) of Erlang, does anyone have >>>> that version and can check if the re module exists? >>> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> R12B-3 has re module in the docs, R12B-2 does not >>> 5.6.3 5.6.2 >>> >>> http://erlang.org/documentation.html >>> >>> ~M >>> >> >> Note to self: Old erlang docs are online. :) >> >> >> So new question, anyone have an issue with bumping the Erlang >> requirement to at least 5.6.3 (from 5.6.0)? > > Go for 5.6.4 at least so we catch the fsync() issue that got fixed there. > I'm ok with 5.6.4. Covering my ass: If anyone has objections to changing the Erlang version requirement you should speak up. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >
