Skip to content

Suggestion of Node.js versions on CI based on package maintenance group practices #119

Closed

Description

@helio-frota

Hi,

Based on recent comments here and here

I found that may be worth to open this issue.

Directly to the point, the idea is to avoid changing Node.js LTS versions over the time by using lts/* and able to include specific versions (current and/or deprecated) as can be seen here

Here is an article with information about that approach:

https://medium.com/@nodejs/choosing-the-node-js-versions-for-your-ci-tests-hint-use-lts-89b67f68d7ca

Activity

  1. added
    type/discussionIssues that need to be decided/debated/discussed
    chore/ciChanges to CI or the build
    on May 4, 2020
  2. grant commented on May 4, 2020

    @grant
    Member

    Adding lts/* LGTM.

  3. lance commented on May 4, 2020

    @lance
    Member

    I like that it will always pick up the most recent LTS version. However, it won't automatically get version 10, which means in .travis.yaml we'd still need to have both 10 and lts/* specified.

    It does buy us LTS testing the moment a new LTS version is released, which is nice. We'd just need to remember to add 12 once 14 is released.

  4. helio-frota commented on May 5, 2020

    @helio-frota
    MemberAuthor

    which means in .travis.yaml we'd still need to have both 10 and lts/* specified.

    Yeah, still need to have 10. This is to remove the need of updating lts over time.

  5. lance commented on May 7, 2020

    @lance
    Member

    @helio-frota can you speak closed? It looks like #106 took care of it, right?

  6. helio-frota commented on May 7, 2020

    @helio-frota
    MemberAuthor

    @lance Sorry, I guess I'm not following your question.
    The idea in this issue is just to change the hard-coded 12 to lts/* in .travis.yml, all the other versions keep the same.

  7. lance commented on May 7, 2020

    @lance
    Member

    @helio-frota OMG I'm sorry! I was making these comments while only half awake this morning using voice to text. It's a mess. I mean to say... would you mind updating #121 so that it doesn't build the backport branch, but keeps this suggested change?

  8. helio-frota commented on May 7, 2020

    @helio-frota
    MemberAuthor

    @lance yup not a problem, PR updated 👍

  9. helio-frota commented on May 7, 2020

    @helio-frota
    MemberAuthor

    Closing... PR landed c1fda94

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    chore/ciChanges to CI or the buildtype/discussionIssues that need to be decided/debated/discussed

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions