delayed child restart with incremental back-off

Nicolas Martyanoff khaelin@REDACTED
Mon May 3 11:04:30 CEST 2021

Ingela Andin <ingela@REDACTED> writes:

> Erlang-patches is legacy, we use GitHub instead, and yes erlang-questions
> is still a place for discussions.
Got it. It would make sense to send an email to people posting on
erlang-questions to inform them (instead of just telling them that the
mailing list is "moderated").

> Well, this was some time ago so I am unsure of how it was
> communicated. But the conclusion was that we did see merit in the idea
> but that we were not able to include something that would be backwards
> incompatible by default. To be able to change defaults we need to have
> a phasing out mechanism and period of testing what problems it might
> cause legacy code. We also did not have an immediate own use case for
> this that could motivate it to be prioritized for us to put much of
> our own time into it, and hence it requires a bigger effort from the
> contributor to motivate and test and think through all scenarios.

Thank you for explaining.

While I understand your point, I fear that this line of reasoning leads
to lots of developers having to skip various OTP components because they
simply cannot be patched. Backward compatibility is important; but
pushed to the extreme, it is tentamount to stagnation and death.

In this case, I am going to have to write a new supervisor module and
apparently I'm not the first one to do so. In addition of a new
gen_server so that I can get the right types and the infinite call
timeout by default, among other things.

The more I use Erlang, the more I realize I would love to have a
distribution containing only the language and related standard libraries
without most of OTP, because it simply does not match my needs and it is
almost impossible to change anything.

Nicolas Martyanoff

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list