[erlang-questions] modular otp concerns

[Björn-Egil Dahlberg]

=) I have no illusions and don't stop a discussion on my account. I'm just
saying I won't be part of it, and I'm guessing nor anyone else from OTP,
until after 17.0. I'm just hoping someone is taking notes.


2014-02-18 20:24 GMT+01:00 Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED>:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140218/de259950/attachment.htm>