DeadZen, Thanks for the email.
I think a stand-alone list for riak_core makes a lot of sense. core is a very powerful piece of software, and more people are starting to use it distinct of Riak. A separate list for Core might help to make it more useful on the whole, and we do need to ensure that when Core changes for the sake of Riak, we take into account everyone using Core. A few of us on the basho eng team discussed it briefly this morning and we're generally on board. We have a call tomorrow morning, and I'll bring it up for discussion. I don't suspect anyone will be vehemently opposed, and if that's the case I'll go ahead and make the list. We might have to do some juggling around what should be on the Riak list vs the Core list, but we'll figure it out. You'll hear from us tomorrow. Mark On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:31 AM, DeadZen <dead...@deadzen.com> wrote: > Firstly, I would like to start off by emphasizing my appreciation for and > belief that separating riak_core was a very good thing. > > I just wished there was a dedicated place to discuss riak_core. I saw that > there is essentially no mailing list to discuss > riak_core issues; which I feel are wider in scope than riak itself, but > improvements would obviously be of benefit to riak. > > I'm also troubled by the fact that there seems to be evidence that if > something isn't needed in riak, > then it should be removed from riak_core ... I think this defeats the > purpose of separating riak_core in the first place > -- evidence: > http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2011-December/006982.html > > I believe the point regarding sync_spawn is valid, however I feel like doing > it through an all state event, invalidated some of its purpose. > > Rather than simply removing it, because it "doesn't fit" now, I think we > should ask, why doesn't it fit now? > Is it possible that this is due to an earlier decision which may of impacted > the suitability of this and other API aspects? > > I think we should discuss these aspects as they change and try to do a > better job at API compatibility. > > In closing... I think there should exist open discussions regarding > riak_core, > that don't get buried in the riak list, therefore I humbly suggest a > riak_core mailing list be started... > > Thank you... > DeadZen - > > #erlang / #erlounge on freenode > > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
