+1 for R13B04.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> 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. >
