[Opensim-dev] Raise minimum mono version to 2.6

[James Hughes]

It seems that we are shooting for partial .net 4.0 support, and 2.6 is 
where we have that. So, if we are using features found in that version, 
then we are saying that version 2.6 is the bare minimum version that our 
code will run on. What is wrong with that?

Mono 3 has some interesting features, including a bump to .net 4.5/C# 
5.0. After things are stable on 3.x, then we will probably want to use 
features in that version. Then we will require .net 4.5 target support.

Mono 2.8 had a more complete .net 4.0 support than 2.6, but it had some 
serious issues when running alongside other versions of mono in 
situations like OSGrid.

In the support channels, we suggest later versions of mono. But there is 
nothing wrong in making correct statements about the minimum support 
needed, and mono 2.6 is the minimum version it will run on. That is a 
correct technical assessment of the requirements and it should stay that 
way unless we need full .net 4.0 support. Then mono 2.8 would be the 
minimum.

-BlueWall

On 01/28/2013 04:47 AM, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
> A minimum version of mono 2.6 does not stop people using mono 2.10 or
> even 3.0.
>
> However, it allows OpenSim to work 'out-of-the-box' with older mono
> packages that are still shipping with some distributions, or with long
> term support versions of those distros. Once people know that they want
> to keep using OpenSimulator then they can do the work of manually
> installing a later version of mono if they wish.
>
> Even so, this could still leave some people who can't upgrade for
> whatever reason out in the cold. But I believe the benefit in terms of
> wider use of modInvoke() outweighs this cost.
>
> Anyhow, the fact is that older Mono versions are not very buggy in terms
> of functionality, since they have to hew to the version of the .NET SDK
> they implement. Indeed, we have been on Mono 2.4.3 for ages without the
> world imploding.
>
> Indeed, newer versions of Mono can suffer problems for a considerable
> period. OpenSimulator wouldn't even run under Mono 3.0 until very
> recently due to bugs in Mono.
>
> Either way, I welcome this discussion since everything should be up for
> rational debate. But for the reasons outlined above, I believe that Mono
> 2.6 is the sensible minimum version bump unless there is some reason
> that this still won't satisfy the modInvoke() requirement, at which
> point the topic may have to be revisited.
>
> However, it is a fact that
> On 28/01/13 09:07, 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
>>
>
>