FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

Working on 1.0.0 by rvagg · Pull Request #253 · nodejs/node · GitHub

Repository navigation

Working on 1.0.0 - #253

Closed
rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:v1.xfrom
rvagg:node_version_h_1.0.0
Closed

rvagg wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:v1.xfrom
rvagg:node_version_h_1.0.0

Conversation

rvagg commented Jan 8, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Someone has to do it!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🎉

rvagg force-pushed the node_version_h_1.0.0 branch from 8286eff to b31c073 Compare January 8, 2015 05:25

dshaw commented Jan 8, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👏👏👏

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

LGTM :-)

fundon commented Jan 8, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⭐

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2015
PR-URL: #253
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>

cjihrig commented Jan 8, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks Rod! Landed in 8a0e7d6

cjihrig closed this Jan 8, 2015

jaw187 commented Jan 8, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

So process.versions.node === 'v1.0.0'? Any way to tell the runtimes apart?

rvagg deleted the node_version_h_1.0.0 branch January 9, 2015 03:24

rvagg commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I was thinking that we should add a process.versions.iojs property but perhaps it's best to take the same approach as in browser-land where you feature detect rather than platform detect?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm not saying I would be using it (though presumably npm would use it for engines matching in the package.json file, but that's another thing), but of course if it's there, people will use it. Can't image what would then happen if there was a Node.js 1.0.0 and it's wasn't the same ;)

cjihrig commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I am in favor of adding process.versions.iojs if for no other reason than to identify node vs. io.js when someone opens an issue and doesn't know what they are running (I'm sure it will happen eventually, even with an iojs binary). Feature detection would be preferred as @rvagg said. If no one is strongly opposed, I'll open a PR.

rvagg commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

the only ones with strong opinions on this I can imagine are @isaacs and perhaps @mikeal

isaacs commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

\o/

rvagg commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@isaacs is that a +1 for an process.versions.iojs or just general excitement about 1.0.0?

isaacs commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rvagg Just general excitement about 1.0.0.

Adding process.versions.iojs is unnecessary and I am opposed to it. Would that version ever !== process.version?

When do you need to feature-detect apart from the version number? Does anyone actually think that there will be a release of joyent/node that is 1.0.0, and not composed of this exact code and this exact set of people doing the release?

algesten commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Does anyone actually think that there will be a release of joyent/node that is 1.0.0, and not composed of this exact code and this exact set of people doing the release?

OT: @isaacs dropping the bomb? sounds almost like you don't believe in the work you do on the NAB? ;)

Copy link
Copy Markdown

process.runtime === 'iojs' ?

yorkie commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

btw, in process.config it has many keys that prefixes with node like node_install_npm, we maybe remove the prefix completely?

yorkie commented Jan 9, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

and i think this should seem to be applied in joyent/node as well :(

Copy link
Copy Markdown

My only concern is how npm will be able to test the engines property as pointed out by @dougwilson. We can't expect joyent to keep 0.x forever.

isaacs commented Jan 10, 2015

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@algesten I do believe that the JNAB is doing good work, and will get to a good place. But the place it'll get to is merging io.js into node, not creating a competing 1.0.0 release.

The post-io.js node will likely be 1.next or 2.0.0.

The version alone will thus be sufficient to differentiate.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@isaacs I think process.versions.iojs is useful for tooling that needs to know whether it's working with node or iojs, like node-gyp (see nodejs/node-gyp#564, which you may have other opinions about as well).

As a result, I put together PR #491. As I'm sure you know, I share your desire to see Node and io.js converge again ere long, but until then, having a simple way to tell them apart from inside the runtime is useful.

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.


Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL