[erlang-questions] What's cooking in erlang/otp
Björn Gustavsson
approximately twice a week to erlang-...@erlang.org.
This first email is also sent to erlang-questions. If you
don't already subscribe to erlang-patches, and want to
be informed about what new features and bug fixes that
may make it into the next release, or to take part in the
discussion, make sure that you subscribe to erlang-patches.
Below you'll find a list of the proposed updates that
have currently been merged to the 'pu' branch in the
erlang/otp repository at github.
To avoid having patches falling to the floor, as have
unfortunately frequently happened in the past, we will now
either merge proposed updates that are not
obviously wrong or inappropriate to the 'pu' branch, or
we will tell you what the problem is. Typically, one of
those things should happen within a workday.
There some is information about patch submitting on the
wiki pages for erlang/otp at github
(http://wiki.github.com/erlang/otp) and we will continue
to update and improve that information.
Here is the list:
* ks/dialyzer-wx-fix (2009-11-28) 1 commit:
- dialyzer: make -wx always start the SMP emulator
Will soon be graduated to ccase/r13b04.
* sv/sys_get_status (2009-11-27) 1 commit:
- This change restores the ability for gen_server and gen_fsm callback
modules to format their own state for display under the
sys:get_status/0 call. This ability is extremely useful for new
behavior modules based on gen_server or gen_fsm, so that they can
display their status in a more meaningful way than just dumping the
state record. It is also generally useful for applications wanting to
display their gen_server or gen_fsm callback module state in something
other than the default manner.
Steve is working on documentation and test cases.
* bg/on_load-types (2009-11-27) 1 commit:
- Add type information for on_load
Confirmed by Kostis that it is OK, so it will soon be graduated to
ccase/r13b04_dev.
* egil/readme-debug-emulator (2009-11-27) 2 commits:
- Fix grammar
- added runtime system debug build notes
Will soon be graduated to ccase/r13b04.
* bd/http_chunk_fix (2009-11-27) 1 commit:
- http_chunk data handling/passing improvement.
* ng/readme (2009-11-26) 2 commits:
- Adding back the copyright markers.
- Cleaning up some small formatting issues in the README.
Will soon be graduated to ccase/r13b04_dev.
* po/odbc-update-delete-no-rows (2009-11-26) 1 commit:
- SQL_NO_DATA and SQLSTATE 00000 indicate success for updates/deletes
that affect no rows
* egil/misc-egd (2009-11-26) 3 commits:
- re-added egd color specs and removed commented code
- added test cases for egd_primitives
- egd speed optimizations and code reduction
--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
________________________________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
Brentley Jones
On a related note though, what invoked this change?
- Brentley Jones
> erlang-patches mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-patches (at) erlang.org
Dave Smith
> I'm really liking the changes in the public-ness of Erlang as of R13B03; github, proposed updates (pu branch), and now this. All I have to say is keep it up!
+1. Thanks, Erlang/OTP team for taking this step -- I'm sure it
entails more work. However, it's great to see the incremental changes
and get a feel for how the next release is shaping up earlier in the
process.
D.
Joe Williams
development process.
Thanks!
-Joe
--
Name: Joseph A. Williams
Email: j...@joetify.com
Blog: http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/
Björn Gustavsson
> I'm really liking the changes in the public-ness of Erlang as of R13B03; github, proposed updates (pu branch), and now this. All I have to say is keep it up!
Thanks!
> On a related note though, what invoked this change?
We have wanted to be more open for a while now, but still
keep enough control to maintain OTP's reputation for stability
and reliability. We were not sure how to achieve both goals
at the same time.
Subversion did not seem to be the answer.
Git and github seem to be the answer.
--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
________________________________________________________________
Björn Gustavsson
> 2009/11/28 Brentley Jones <the....@gmail.com>:
>> I'm really liking the changes in the public-ness of Erlang as of R13B03; github, proposed updates (pu branch), and now this. All I have to say is keep it up!
>
> +1. Thanks, Erlang/OTP team for taking this step -- I'm sure it
> entails more work.
Yes, it will certainly be more work in the short term until we
have worked out all procedures and written all scripts,
but I think that we will be more productive in the long term.
> However, it's great to see the incremental changes
> and get a feel for how the next release is shaping up earlier in the
> process.
Yes, that will probably lower the barrier for sending in patches.
--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
________________________________________________________________
Anthony Shipman
> We have wanted to be more open for a while now, but still
> keep enough control to maintain OTP's reputation for stability
> and reliability. We were not sure how to achieve both goals
> at the same time.
>
> Subversion did not seem to be the answer.
>
> Git and github seem to be the answer.
How does git and github do it whereas subversion fails?
--
Anthony Shipman Mamas don't let your babies
a...@iinet.net.au grow up to be outsourced.
Michael Richter
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:07:33 am Björn Gustavsson wrote:
> > We have wanted to be more open for a while now, but still
> > keep enough control to maintain OTP's reputation for stability
> > and reliability. We were not sure how to achieve both goals
> > at the same time.
>
> > Subversion did not seem to be the answer.
>
> > Git and github seem to be the answer.
>
> How does git and github do it whereas subversion fails?
>
Much easier branching and merging would be my guess.
Alpar Juttner
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:07:33 am Björn Gustavsson wrote:
> > We have wanted to be more open for a while now, but still
> > keep enough control to maintain OTP's reputation for stability
> > and reliability. We were not sure how to achieve both goals
> > at the same time.
> >
> > Subversion did not seem to be the answer.
> >
> > Git and github seem to be the answer.
>
> How does git and github do it whereas subversion fails?
Subversion is a centralized system, which divides the people into two
categories - you either have a write access to the repository, then you
can do everything without any control, or you don't have, then you can't
directly contribute to the repository.
In distributed RCS like git, the process of creating/commiting a
changeset is separated from putting it into a repository (branch).
Therefore you can make any kind of changes, your commits will appear
under your name, but they can be reviewed before getting into the
official repository.
Regards,
Alpar
Björn Gustavsson
>
> How does git and github do it whereas subversion fails?
Michael Richter and Alpár Jüttner emails explain why
*git* does it.
I'll just add that because of *github*, we didn't even have to set
up a server with our own public git repository. That's one headache
less. If we would have used Subversion (or any centralized VCS),
we would have had to set up our own server and then worry
about how it would scale when the numbers of users grew.
--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
________________________________________________________________
Anthony Shipman
> In distributed RCS like git, the process of creating/commiting a
> changeset is separated from putting it into a repository (branch).
> Therefore you can make any kind of changes, your commits will appear
> under your name, but they can be reviewed before getting into the
> official repository.
>
> Regards,
> Alpar
Do you mean that people commit in repositories in their own computers and then
later someone can pull the changes into the official repository?
--
Anthony Shipman Mamas don't let your babies
a...@iinet.net.au grow up to be outsourced.
________________________________________________________________
Paul Oliver
I found this Google tech talk on Git illuminating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhZ9BXQgc4
Cheers,
Paul.
Raimo Niskanen
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:52:55 pm Alpar Juttner wrote:
> > In distributed RCS like git, the process of creating/commiting a
> > changeset is separated from putting it into a repository (branch).
> > Therefore you can make any kind of changes, your commits will appear
> > under your name, but they can be reviewed before getting into the
> > official repository.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alpar
>
> Do you mean that people commit in repositories in their own computers and then
> later someone can pull the changes into the official repository?
Allmost right. People work in their repositories on their
own computers, then push to a public privately owned
repository on e.g github, and from there someone
can pull changes into the official repository (via
first pull to a repository on their own computer, testing,
evaluating, cleaning up, finally pushing to the official)
>
> --
> Anthony Shipman Mamas don't let your babies
> a...@iinet.net.au grow up to be outsourced.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
--
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB