Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#41

Post by caipre »

mmorris wrote: post #38
ak4g wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Can you provide a URL?

>> “IO.js, what’s that?” asked Joyent CEO Scott Hammond in response to my query about whether projects based on the fork would be able to enter. http://readwrite.com/2015/02/03/joyent-nodejs-incubator-iojs... Edit: Agreed with @caipre's reply that the quote isn't as bad as it sounds totally out of context (in hindsight I should have included more of the context in my reply too), and was probably meant tongue-in-cheek…

The quote in context isn't nearly as damning as GP made it out to be. It seems to me that Hammond was answering tongue-in-cheek and only meant to emphasize that his focus was on Node.js alone:

  One more thing: Developers using IO instead of Node are,
  well, not invited.

  “IO.js, what’s that?” asked Joyent CEO Scott Hammond in
  response to my query about whether projects based on the
  fork would be able to enter. “This is a Node.js project
  for Node.js innovations.”
I'm not sure I can take the criticism seriously after seeing the source.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#42

Post by fapjacks »

Oh man I love it! There's no way Joyent is going to say yes to this, and the best part is that these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals. I grok that io.js core devs are totally serious about merging back into Node, but there's no way Joyent is going to go for this. I expect at best a counter-proposal (that may not even be public) that doesn't do these points justice. The ball is absolutely in Joyent's court, and whatever happens next will be at least entertaining.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#43

Post by morgante »

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success.

There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made.

But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire governance structure of Node (including an entirely new management team). It's a desired coup, driven by an ultimatum, in the guise of a "proposal."

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#44

Post by jballanc »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #27

From my limited understanding of the situation as a casual observer, I'd say the optimal (or at least simplest) outcome here would be to do an egcs/gcc-style switch where io.js is officially christened as the next Node.js, and the incumbent Node.js deprecated. That said, I'm not sure if Joyent will be receptive to such a move.

My thoughts exactly. I think anyone not familiar with the history of GCC/EGCS would do well to read up a bit...the current node.js/io.js situation almost an exact parallel. I also hope that Joyent takes note that EGCS was probably one of the best things to happen to GCC, and that the shift in governance model is likely one of the reasons for GCC's current success.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#45

Post by stingraycharles »

morgante wrote: post #43

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success. There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made. But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire g…

Yeah this whole issue can even be interpreted as being passive-agressive. Not saying that it is, but it just has a weird feeling surrounding it, almost as if there is a huge grudge between each other, and being overly political (correct).

They are not really starting a discussion, this is more of a "you need to do everything different, or else..", as if they are now building up some evidence that they can later use to support their argument of "hey, /we/ tried to be compatible, but it is /their/ fault".

But I'm probably reading too much into this.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#46

Post by petercooper »

morgante wrote: post #43

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success. There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made. But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire g…

Such a coup does rest on most of the 359 working groups voting in agreeance according to the provisional and not yet entirely decided, declared, or ratified by-laws of the tentative constitution of the current committee's purview of the project, however.

My opinion? I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of the will of the working groups, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't an easy way to tell if they'll vote one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.

I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been the policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Joyent and administration as a responsibility of Joyent's officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#47

Post by jballanc »

ac360 wrote: post #33

Why reconcile? This is awesome competition. It involves open-source competitors. Today's gripes will soon be forgotten.

Open source competition can be good when the differences are primarily technical (e.g. GCC vs LLVM/Clang). When the differences are primarily political (e.g. GCC vs EGCS), then the competition serves only as a distraction. As a mostly-uninvolved outside observer, this competition seems more like the later than the former.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#48

Post by cpeterso »

fapjacks wrote: post #42

Oh man I love it! There's no way Joyent is going to say yes to this, and the best part is that these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals. I grok that io.js core devs are totally serious about merging back into Node, but there's no way Joyent is going to go for this. I expect at best a counter-proposal (that may not even be public) that doesn't do these points justice. The ball is absolutely in Joyent's cour…

I have read plenty about the io.js project's technical and political frustrations, but I have not seen much on Joyent's position. I don't understand why Joyent let Node languish when it is an extremely popular project and apparently a significant part of their business.

Recalling the GCC/EGCS schism in the late 1990s, I predict that Joyent will support Node 0.12 as an LTS release and io.js will become Node™ master.

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/history_of_gcc_d...

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#49

Post by ac360 »

jballanc wrote: post #47
ac360 wrote: post #33

Why reconcile? This is awesome competition. It involves open-source competitors. Today's gripes will soon be forgotten.

Open source competition can be good when the differences are primarily technical (e.g. GCC vs LLVM/Clang). When the differences are primarily political (e.g. GCC vs EGCS), then the competition serves only as a distraction. As a mostly-uninvolved outside observer, this competition seems more like the later than the former.

Political competition is hugely important. Governance models are tech.

Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

#50

Post by cpeterso »

jballanc wrote: post #44
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #27

From my limited understanding of the situation as a casual observer, I'd say the optimal (or at least simplest) outcome here would be to do an egcs/gcc-style switch where io.js is officially christened as the next Node.js, and the incumbent Node.js deprecated. That said, I'm not sure if Joyent will be receptive to such a move.

My thoughts exactly. I think anyone not familiar with the history of GCC/EGCS would do well to read up a bit...the current node.js/io.js situation almost an exact parallel. I also hope that Joyent takes note that EGCS was probably one of the best things to happen to GCC, and that the shift in governance model is likely one of the reasons for GCC's current success.

This page has a detailed timeline and emails from the GCC/EGCS schism:

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/history_of_gcc_d...

Post reply on HN