On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau
>>> wrote:
In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Paul Davis
> wrote:
>
>> Just a quick note. I started actual (minimal) work on this last night.
>> After a bit of poking I'm starting to think that rebar isn't going to
>> support vpath builds without some
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> Just a quick note. I started actual (minimal) work on this last night.
> After a bit of poking I'm starting to think that rebar isn't going to
> support vpath builds without some contribution back to rebar. I'm not
> against adding this but I a
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
>>> start by using rebar in our install process.
>>>
>>> Like
On 18 Oct 2010, at 03:03, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> Ace, Paul :)
>>
>> Just some bikeshedding as I agree with most that is said here.
>>
>> I'm wondering if the OS process handling could be its own module or
>> part of couch_core. While the Vie
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Ace, Paul :)
>
> Just some bikeshedding as I agree with most that is said here.
>
> I'm wondering if the OS process handling could be its own module or
> part of couch_core. While the View Server is the primary user, it is
> not the only one a
Ace, Paul :)
Just some bikeshedding as I agree with most that is said here.
I'm wondering if the OS process handling could be its own module or
part of couch_core. While the View Server is the primary user, it is
not the only one and having OS process management in the view server
module just fee
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Joe Williams wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
>> start by using rebar in our install process.
>>
>> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
On Oct 15, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Joe Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>
>>> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
>>> start by using rebar in our install process.
>>>
>>> Li
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Joe Williams wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
>> start by using rebar in our install process.
>>
>> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
> start by using rebar in our install process.
>
> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
> rebar.config files and other templates an then rebar for th
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> So there's a couple issues at hand here which seem to be motivated by
> the desire to start using tools like rebar.
>
> Our current source tree is not compliant with some of the basic
> Erlang/OTP conventions. This is both bad technically and so
On Oct 14, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Brian Mitchell wrote:
>> couch_* seems a little repetitive. Why not core/, http/, etc?
>>
>
> I think its important to keep couch in the app directory name. This
> will come into play if people pull in couchdb cod
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Brian Mitchell wrote:
> couch_* seems a little repetitive. Why not core/, http/, etc?
>
I think its important to keep couch in the app directory name. This
will come into play if people pull in couchdb code into other
packages. For instance, I think it'd make thin
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
>> start by using rebar in our install process.
>>
>> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
>> r
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Robert Dionne
wrote:
> +1 also
>
> I think the convention is
>
> ./apps/couch_core/ebin
> ./apps/couch_core/src
> ./apps/couch_core/include
> ./apps/couch_core/priv
> ./apps/couch_http/ebin
>
>
> rather than ./src/
>
This is one of the places that Noah ha
couch_* seems a little repetitive. Why not core/, http/, etc?
On Oct 14, 2010, at 18:52, Robert Dionne wrote:
> +1 also
>
> I think the convention is
>
> ./apps/couch_core/ebin
> ./apps/couch_core/src
> ./apps/couch_core/include
> ./apps/couch_core/priv
> ./apps/couch_http/ebin
>
>
> r
+1 also
I think the convention is
./apps/couch_core/ebin
./apps/couch_core/src
./apps/couch_core/include
./apps/couch_core/priv
./apps/couch_http/ebin
rather than ./src/
I like the idea of still using the existing build, which is awesome, and have
it feed into rebar so we can make use
Paul,
Brilliant writeup and proposal. I'd like to see all those things
happen pretty much as you said. Cleaning the cycles out will be much
easier once things are broken out in that style.
+1
B.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesne
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
> start by using rebar in our install process.
>
> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
> rebar.config files and other templates an then rebar for
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> node,
>
s/node/note .
I also didn't mean to imply that I object on those grounds. I just
wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case someone felt
strongly about it. I actually really like the autoconf + rebar
proposal.
-Randall
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 22:29, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/10/14 Peter Lemenkov :
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/10/14 Benoit Chesneau :
> Regarding switch to rebar - I don't see any significant benefits.
> Compiling *.erl files into *.beam and properly install them is not a
> rocket science and requires only few lines of shell scripting. At
> le
2010/10/14 Peter Lemenkov :
> 2010/10/14 Benoit Chesneau :
> I don't fully understand why people still believe that minimum
> requirement for CouchDB is R12B5, because last released ver. 1.0.1
> requires 5 additional patches for mochiweb and 2 patches for couchdb
> itself just for passing self-tes
2010/10/14 Benoit Chesneau :
>>> The only concern I have is that I believe we need R13 for rebar and
>>> right now Couch only requires a minumum of R12B5, no? So it means
>>> dumping the dependency requirements.
> lapsus? ;) Most of the distributions are using erlang > r13b03, (even
> openbsd!),
Rebar isn't currently properly supported on windows, but making it
work should be doable. (http://bitbucket.org/juranki/rebar/ works for
me)
Using rebar might have potential to make it humane to work with
couchdb on windows.
+1
-juhani
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> I
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> Errr... *B*umping the dependency requirements.
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 15:01, Randall Leeds wrote:
>> The only concern I have is that I believe we need R13 for rebar and
>> right now Couch only requires a minumum of R12B5, no? So it mea
+1
On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
> start by using rebar in our install process.
>
> Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
> rebar.config files and other templates an then rebar f
Errr... *B*umping the dependency requirements.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 15:01, Randall Leeds wrote:
> The only concern I have is that I believe we need R13 for rebar and
> right now Couch only requires a minumum of R12B5, no? So it means
> dumping the dependency requirements.
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2
The only concern I have is that I believe we need R13 for rebar and
right now Couch only requires a minumum of R12B5, no? So it means
dumping the dependency requirements.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 14:23, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
> st
In an attempt to start some merging with cloudant I would like to
start by using rebar in our install process.
Like i see it, we could continue to use autotools to create the
rebar.config files and other templates an then rebar for the final
build and dependencies management. This changes as notic
31 matches
Mail list logo
