functioning ssl? </JamesM>
On 1/22/14 11:07 PM, "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> 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 <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 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 <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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >
