[Opensim-dev] Raise minimum mono version to 2.6
Diva Canto
diva at metaverseink.com
Mon Jan 28 12:18:39 UTC 2013
It's not our job to tell which version of mono people should use to run
opensim. There are way too many Linux flavors out there with different
monos, and each person running OpenSim has their own constraints and
goals. Ideally, ppl should be able to use any version of mono they
want/need. However, due to some serious bugs that happen in mono and
then get fixed, and that obviously affect OpenSim, we need to
impose/recommend a lower bound. That is the case with the situation that
Justin described.
Mono 2.6 worked well for me, and I would use again it if I had to -- for
example, if I had to deal with an inflexibly old version of Linux. Mono
2.8 was a disaster in, at least, Ubuntu. Mono 2.10 works well again. The
improvements in mono are not monotonic...
I don't see that many bug reports whose cause is old versions of mono --
at least not when compared to the total number of bug reports. They
happen from time to time, but it's not that big of a deal, and they
certainly don't consume any developer's cycles in any significant way.
On 1/28/2013 1:07 AM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
> Is it possible te test what the impact on the performance of opensim
> is when it uses mono 2.10 or even mono 3.0 instead of mono 2.6 ?
>
> For most linux systems it is no longer an issue to upgrade mono. In
> the past it was, but time changes.
>
> I think opensim should go for performance and not the lowest possible
> version.
>
>
>
> 2013/1/27 Ilan Tochner <ilan at kitely.com <mailto:ilan at kitely.com>>
>
> We use Linux too and have downloaded and used versions of mono
> that were not officially supported by the distro/version we used.
> There are alternative repositories people can use that are just a
> Google search away.
>
> IMO, supporting outdated mono versions is a luxury we can't afford
> in our volunteer-based project where the few developers that
> contribute code are focused on modern mono versions.
>
> We won't be spending resources on supporting old mono versions but
> I assume from your reply that you will be. As you are one of the
> people who help move OpenSim forward, this use of your time will
> negatively effect most OpenSim users as your time could have been
> much better spent improving OpenSim for modern versions of mono
> (I'm being liberal calling the 2 year old mono 2.10 release modern).
>
> Your time, your decision but your choice to spend it on outdated
> middleware will negatively effect OpenSim's progress. It really is
> your call, I've said my say about the subject.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ilan Tochner
> Co-Founder and CEO
> Kitely Ltd.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com
> <mailto:melanie at t-data.com>> wrote:
>
> Since you have already stated that you will not support older
> versions, our decision will not affect you in any way.
>
> We have, for a long time, used mono 2.4 as the base simply because
> versions of distros in common use don't offer it as part of their
> repo. OpenSim targets not only Windows users but all operating
> systems, including Linux. As long as people use versions of Linux
> that don't natively supply 2.10, we cannot make it our baseline.
> That is simply not open for discussion.
>
> Melanie
>
> On 27/01/2013 21:56, Ilan Tochner wrote:
> > That's all well and good but saying we support mono version
> 2.6 and
> > actually supporting it are two very different things.
> >
> > Who here is willing to spend their time fixing problems that
> only appear in
> > versions before mono 2.10? (this isn't a rhetorical
> question, if you are
> > willing to commit to doing so then please reply and let the
> group know)
> >
> > If anyone is, do you think that doing so is better use of
> our limited
> > development resources than telling the person who had the
> problem to just
> > upgrade to a slightly more modern version of mono that can
> be easily
> > installed?
> >
> > It makes sense not to drop support for old operating
> systems, as they
> > usually can't be easily upgraded, but installing a newer
> version of mono is
> > very simple when there are repositories you can just apt get
> / rpm it from.
> >
> > What exactly will be served by saying mono 2.6 is supported
> when no one
> > will invest (waste?) their time debugging for it? Wouldn't
> our users be
> > better served by having OpenSim run as best as it can (given
> our limited
> > resources) on a better performing version of mono that those
> users can
> > easily install?
> >
> > I know Kitely won't be spending resources on debugging for
> old mono
> > releases so my only horse in this is wanting OpenSim to
> advance as quickly
> > as it can without leaving people behind. Setting mono 2.10
> as the baseline
> > makes it easier for this open source dev community to
> accomplish this goal.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ilan Tochner
> > Co-Founder and CEO
> > Kitely Ltd.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Melanie <melanie at t-data.com
> <mailto:melanie at t-data.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> It has always been our policy to use the _lowest_ version
> of Mono
> >> that we can get by on to support the largest possible number of
> >> configurations and systems.
> >>
> >> This is not going to change.
> >>
> >> The feature required by recent code additions is found in
> Mono 2.6,
> >> so we are discussing Mono 2.6 now. We are not discussing
> Mono 2.10.
> >>
> >> Melanie
> >>
> >> On 27/01/2013 15:32, Ilan Tochner wrote:
> >> > If, as we both agree, OpenSim works differently with
> different versions
> >> of
> >> > mono then people are going to report bugs that exist when
> OpenSim is run
> >> on
> >> > mono versions prior to 2.10 that don't exist with mono
> version 2.10 and
> >> > later.
> >> >
> >> > How many people are there in the OpenSim dev community
> that still
> >> actively
> >> > use a mono version prior to 2.10? In fact, AFAIK, many
> devs are already
> >> > looking to see when they can safely move to mono 3.0. So,
> who is going to
> >> > work on fixing bugs that no longer exist with mono 2.10
> and later? If no
> >> > ones is going to work on doing that then we can't
> honestly say that mono
> >> > 2.6 or 2.8 are still supported.
> >> >
> >> > If we intend to have new OpenSim users, we should have
> them using the
> >> mono
> >> > version with which they'll get the best experience with
> the existing /
> >> > future code base. It doesn't help anyone if they use an
> outdated version
> >> of
> >> > mono and find that the problems they encounter aren't
> going to be
> >> addressed
> >> > because they no longer exist with newer versions of mono.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Ilan Tochner
> >> > Co-Founder and CEO
> >> > Kitely Ltd.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Dahlia Trimble
> <dahliatrimble at gmail.com <mailto:dahliatrimble at gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Nobody is asking you to use an older version. The
> minimum version is
> >> >> simply the earliest version that would be required to
> run OpenSimulator.
> >> >> Anyone is free to use any later version if they so choose.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's also not true that later versions are necessarily
> better. I've
> >> >> personally had to disable features in OpenSimulator and
> remove them from
> >> >> core due to newer versions of Mono which introduced new
> bugs that made
> >> such
> >> >> features unusable.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Ilan Tochner
> <ilan at kitely.com <mailto:ilan at kitely.com>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Mono 2.10 was released Feb 15th, 2011, i.e almost two
> years ago. I
> >> don't
> >> >>> think there is any target platform that mono 2.6 runs
> on that doesn't
> >> have
> >> >>> mono 2.10 working on it as well.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There have been many bug fixes in mono between the 2.6
> release and the
> >> >>> 2.10 release, some of which can definitely effect
> OpenSim performance
> >> and
> >> >>> stability. Who would choose to use the older mono
> version when a
> >> better one
> >> >>> has been available for at least two years? If someone
> reports a problem
> >> >>> with OpenSim I think we should require them to at least
> test it using
> >> mono
> >> >>> 2.10 so we can rule out the older mono being the cause
> of the problem.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ilan Tochner
> >> >>> Co-Founder and CEO
> >> >>> Kitely Ltd.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Dahlia Trimble <
> >> dahliatrimble at gmail.com <mailto:dahliatrimble at gmail.com>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I think the point is raise it to the minimum version
> which supports
> >> the
> >> >>>> codebase. If there was some feature in 2.10 that did
> not exist in 2.6
> >> and
> >> >>>> that feature was required for proper execution, then
> 2.10 would be a
> >> better
> >> >>>> target. Otherwise it would just be forcing people to
> upgrade who
> >> would not
> >> >>>> otherwise need to.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading to 2.10
> if they desire,
> >> >>>> however, requiring a higher version than is really
> necessary limits
> >> >>>> potential users of the software to those who are able
> to install those
> >> >>>> versions in their setups. If a goal of OpenSimulator
> developers is
> >> wide
> >> >>>> adoption, then it makes sense to have it be usable on
> as many existing
> >> >>>> hardware/software configurations as possible.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Ilan Tochner
> <ilan at kitely.com <mailto:ilan at kitely.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> I second setting 2.10 as the base. If we'll be
> forcing people to
> >> >>>>> upgrade I think we should upgrade to the latest
> stable release and
> >> not to
> >> >>>>> one that is outdated.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> If OpenSim works fine with 3.0 then I'd vote for it
> to be the base.
> >> If
> >> >>>>> we're still calling OpenSim alpha we should at least
> get the
> >> benefits of
> >> >>>>> doing so. Supporting old versions of mono is a waste
> of developer
> >> resources.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Ilan Tochner
> >> >>>>> Co-Founder and CEO
> >> >>>>> Kitely Ltd.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Trinity
> <trinity93 at gmail.com <mailto:trinity93 at gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> if we can get a way with it why not go to 2.10 else
> quickly be out
> >> of
> >> >>>>>> date agian
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:38 AM, James Hughes <
> >> >>>>>> jamesh at bluewallgroup.com
> <mailto:jamesh at bluewallgroup.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On 01/24/2013 10:29 PM, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Whilst writing JsonStore regression tests this
> evening, I hit the
> >> >>>>>>>> problem where modInvoke script methods of more
> than 4 parameters
> >> >>>>>>>> cannot
> >> >>>>>>>> be registered on Mono 2.4.3 as it doesn't
> implement the required
> >> >>>>>>>> larger
> >> >>>>>>>> multi-parameter Func generic types.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Therefore, I want to bump the minimum Mono version for
> >> OpenSimulator
> >> >>>>>>>> up
> >> >>>>>>>> to 2.6 which was released more than 3 years ago.
> This also
> >> involves
> >> >>>>>>>> bumping the minimum .net framework version up to
> 4.0, as also
> >> >>>>>>>> detailed
> >> >>>>>>>> at [1]
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> [1]
> http://opensimulator.org/**mantis/view.php?id=5971<
> >> http://opensimulator.org/mantis/view.php?id=5971>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Any comments?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
> >> >>>>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >>>>>>>
> https://lists.berlios.de/**mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >>>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >>>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> >> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Groningen en Hannover Opensims:
> secondlife://meverhagen.nl:8002:Hannover ZW/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20130128/3bec43fd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list