Skip to content

Chrome 43 released; time for V8 4.3! #1735

Description

Activity

  1. Fishrock123 commented on May 19, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    Good grief it would be nice to do these in minors. Maybe we should just do every other or something.

  2. domenic commented on May 19, 2015

    @domenic
    ContributorAuthor

    This is just our bad because we were 4 weeks into a 6-week cycle before we finished up with 4.2.

  3. added
    v8 engineIssues and PRs related to the V8 dependency.
    on May 19, 2015
  4. Fishrock123 commented on May 19, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    Honestly I don't really like having our major schedule dictated by a dependency.

  5. rvagg commented on May 19, 2015

    @rvagg
    Member

    "io.js is moving too fast" is something I'm hearing a bit but I honestly believe this is:

    1. a new reality people will need to get used to; and
    2. a reinforcement of our need to dig in to LTS to provide a sense of stability

    I'm fine with bumping major more frequently but would prefer it to be tied to actual "breaking" changes and we need to be sure that V8 upgrades do that.

    @chrisdickinson how's next going?

  6. Fishrock123 commented on May 19, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    I'm fine with moving fast, but this project doesn't quite work like v8 / chrome does where everything is in-company.

    And again, we should be able to cut majors when we feel it is good, not when a dependancy releases again for the billionth time.

    I guess at least we won't have to LTS 2.x

  7. mscdex commented on May 19, 2015

    @mscdex
    Contributor

    Also something to think about: if node/io/whatever eventually adopts a multi-JS backend feature (e.g. with Chakra, Spidermonkey, etc.), would we still align with v8 releases?

  8. domenic commented on May 19, 2015

    @domenic
    ContributorAuthor

    @mscdex If we do that, presumably we'll have figured out a way to avoid breaking ABI on every V8 release via our amazing pie-in-the-sky multi-VM wrapper, so, we won't need to do major releases in that case.

  9. imyller commented on May 19, 2015

    @imyller
    Member

    @kkoopa is nan ready for this yet?
    If not, this is going to hit native module compatibility even harder than 2.x.x did.

  10. kkoopa commented on May 19, 2015

    @kkoopa

    It is, but won't be released until the other loose ends are tied.

    On May 19, 2015 8:28:54 PM EEST, Ilkka Myller notifications@github.com wrote:

    @kkoopa is nan ready for this yet?
    If not, this is going to hit native module compatibility even harder
    than 2.x.x did.


    Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
    #1735 (comment)

  11. Fishrock123 commented on May 19, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor
  12. chrisdickinson commented on May 19, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    Contributor

    @rvagg The vm problem persists in next – I'm not sure I have the expertise necessary to diagnose what's going wrong exactly. Perhaps @bnoordhuis or @domenic has made progress on this?

    @Fishrock123 As @domenic notes, we released v2 pretty far into the v8 cycle, so we're paying the proverbial piper by having an abbreviated v2 line. We were also figuring out how we wanted to arrange branches and juggling a few other issues at the time – as we get better at hitting cadence with v8, I think the major version bumps will be a bit more natural.

    That said, semver is for computers, LTS lines are for humans. We shouldn't worry about bumping one of those arbitrary integers – and we should definitely distance ourselves from editorializing which numbers feel good to bump, and when. We should figure out how to properly label and recommend particular subsets of those integers to humans.

  13. Fishrock123 commented on May 19, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    Fair enough, @domenic said earlier in IRC he'd try to look into it.

  14. bricss commented on May 20, 2015

    @bricss
    Contributor

    Just bump v2.1.0 and roll out release :)

  15. rvagg commented on Jun 3, 2015

    @rvagg
    Member

    leaving on tsc-agenda, there's probably more to discuss here

  16. Fishrock123 commented on Jun 28, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    I'm pretty sure we are now PR-ing 4.4 into next. Closing.

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

    v8 engineIssues and PRs related to the V8 dependency.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions