Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit being a separate and optional package).
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > +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. >> >
