IO.js, a Node fork • Hacker News Board

This has been brewing for a while. I don't know most of the people involved but they post youtube videos of their meetings. isaacs is involved and get is the creator of npm so that is a good sign. As I understand it this is a direct backlash against joyent's governance of node and it's slow release cycle.

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#14

Post by keithwhor » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:23 PM UTC

Would really like to see some explanation of an overall vision here. A paragraph from a core contributor would do.

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#15

Post by gkoberger » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

This is a big deal, because of who is involved. Here's the list of people involved:

   * Indutny (listed as a Node.js code team member)
   * Trevor Norris (also a Node.js core team member)
   * Isaac Schlueter (cited as a Node.js core team alumni)
   * Ben Noordhuis (also an alumni)
   * Bert Belder (another alumni and a Node.js maintainer)

Compared to the Node list of top contributors:

https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors

Here's some better information:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2855057/application-develop...

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#16

Post by berns » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

Why isn't it a github fork?

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#17

Post by doublerebel » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

This is the third time in a week an uninformative link has been posted to HN, without any comment from the forking community. Can we consider this a dupe?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8669557 (Another link to the repo)

At this point I'm just getting frustrated because I should be able to learn about important open-source issues from the community, not from a Wired article and not hidden in some secretive organization and private repo. Airing frustrations through Wired is only bad for the community -- the headline is nothing but FUD:

"Future of Popular Coding Tool In Doubt After Public Split" -- Can you imagine selling your CEO on Node when articles like this are being written?? Someone on HN posted this [1] recently, and I think it's very appropriate -- I believe this confusion could have been avoided:

> If, after careful consideration, you still conclude that you must fork, line up support privately first, then announce the fork in a non-hostile tone. Even if you are angry at, or disappointed with, the current maintainers, don't say that in the message. Just dispassionately state what led you to the decision to fork, and that you mean no ill will toward the project from which you're forking. Assuming that you do consider it a fork (as opposed to an emergency preservation of the original project), emphasize that you're forking the code and not the name, and choose a name that does not conflict with the project's name. You can use a name that contains or refers to the original name, as long as it does not open the door to identity confusion. Of course it's fine to explain prominently on the fork's home page that it descends from the original program, and even that it hopes to supplant it. Just don't make users' lives harder by forcing them to untangle an identity dispute.

[1] http://producingoss.com/en/forks.html

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#18

Post by courtewing » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

What I find most interesting about this is how many of the most influential people in the node community seem to be at least interested in supporting this, if not actual on board. The website and github organization do not give any info about who is involved, but if you look at some of the discussions in github issues, you'll see some big-name node community members.

Just a few I saw in the handful of issues I looked at: isaacs, mikeal, domenic, rvag

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#19

Post by jackmaney » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

gkoberger wrote: post #15

This is a big deal, because of who is involved. Here's the list of people involved: * Indutny (listed as a Node.js code team member) * Trevor Norris (also a Node.js core team member) * Isaac Schlueter (cited as a Node.js core team alumni) * Ben Noordhuis (also an alumni) * Bert Belder (another alumni and a Node.js maintainer) Compared to the Node list of top contributors: https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contrib…

Thank you for some actual, useful information! The article link should be repointed to http://www.infoworld.com/article/2855057/application-develop... if at all possible.

Re: IO.js, a Node fork

#20

Post by DAddYE » Thu, Dec 04, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

So for those who wonder:

    In the TC meeting today we came up with a vision for the first release.

    First, a few assumptions we've internalized that probably need to be stated for this to make sense.

    - Node is pretty damn stable already. There are huge companies with it in production, 100K+ modules, etc. It is already far more stable that its pre-1.0 release tag suggests.
    - Releasing more frequently leads to a more stable product, not a less stable product.
    - The entire ecosystem uses semver while node uses a confusing even/odd release structure.

    If people disagree with any of those assumptions then they certainly won't agree with anything the TC determined for the initial release.

    So, first release of io.js:

    - January 13th (Fedor's Birthday!) target date.
    - Will be 1.0-alpha1, with alpha releases continuing until 1.0.0.
    - Switching to semver.
    - We will be taking new v8 releases as fast as possible moving forward.
    - Trying to get to a weekly release cycle. Which version number is incremented each week is determined by the changes and whether or not they are breaking. Again, following semver.

    Some questions still left open:

    - Are there any changes other than dep upgrades and fixes required for 1.0?
    - Is build confident we can have enough automation in place to hit this date.
    - Is the plan to have the installer install an iojs binary and an alias to node?

Source: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/28