[erlang-questions] modular otp concerns

Tuncer Ayaz <>
Tue Feb 18 20:24:03 CET 2014

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
> On 2014-02-18 18:46, Michael Truog wrote:
>> On 02/18/2014 09:30 AM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
>>> If/when we split the OTP repository, and this split should be on
>>> the level where we have specific versions i.e. on application
>>> level. It has solve the issue of easy delivery of new patches and
>>> release on these specific applications. Some have voiced a concern
>>> that it will simply be to many repos and we should instead group
>>> them, i.e. Orber + cos* etc. I say fine, if so then those
>>> applications should have one version (and be a single
>>> application). One versioned entity per repository thank you.
>> My main concern is: if the OTP repository is split, we still need
>> the concept of a "version set", so a set of versions for all of OTP
>> that are known to work together, just to help people avoid any
>> potential for instability. With that concept in place, it shouldn't
>> be a problem either way, and you are probably aware of the issue,
>> but I wanted to mention it due to the added complexity that not
>> having a "version set" concept can cause. If you don't have that
>> concept, of versions grouped into a release, basically, then you
>> run into a combinatorial problem during testing, which makes
>> testing take longer (i.e., for all end-users).
> I'm aware. The "set" you talk about would ideally be controlled by
> the application dependencies.
> But OTP releases would be the set you talk about though and a top
> repo, i.e. otp would control the set. I imagine that we would still
> have releases just like today with a set of applications that we
> have tested together.
> As for patches, those are tested with the dependencies specified,
> typically with those applications in the previous release. It would
> have the same stability as before.
> It is unfortunate that this debate got started now. I have actually
> zero time to spend on it .. i'll can do is watch it spin into
> another dimension.

Sorry, Bjoern-Egil, and it's totally fine to postpone the discussion
until after R17 is released. Let's just just pause and start a new
discussion when R17 is out.

BTW, your arguments for splitting up the repo sound reasonable.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list