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

Io.js 1.0.0

iojs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#131

Post by dustinls »

stepstep wrote: post #85
tuananh wrote: post #82

it seems it uninstall `node` when install itself.

It just overwrites the node symlink. > "This package will install io.js v1.0.0 and npm v2.1.18 into /usr/local/. The binary /usr/local/bin/iojs will also be symlinked as /usr/local/bin/node."

The windows install for this took the liberty of removing my original nodejs install, removed the binary and batch files from the program files\nodejs directory, even though I opted to install iojs to its own folder. Nodejs shortcuts are removed from start menu, and path variables were removed as well.

Go to reinstall nodejs, and that install says a later version is already installed and cancels the install without giving me an option to install anyway.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#132

Post by diggan »

stephenr wrote: post #106
elisee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the io.js devs think Node.js should have switched to 1.x ("stable") a long time ago. But from their perspective, this is io.js's first release with their own build infrastructure and they made a lot of aggressive changes (updated V8 dependency, etc.), so they're calling their own release beta-quality. Makes sense?

It doesn't make sense to release beta quality software as "v1.0.0" without any reference to being a beta in the version itself. Either use a 0.x version or use a -beta -identifier if the api is fixed but stability is not guaranteed

It does say "Version 1.0.1 (Beta stability)", what more are you requesting?

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#133

Post by stephenr »

sturadnidge wrote: post #129
stephenr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why is it called "1.0.1" (and now 1.0.1 on the homepage) and not "1.0.0-beta" ?

The 1.0.0 release was called 1.0.0 - there has been a patch release since. Pretty much any software I can think of lists the latest release on the homepage rather than linking to a static version, but you're right it's a little confusing that specifying a version in the querystring doesn't actually appear to link directly to that version. EDIT: confusing if the intention of the iojs team was to have the querystring a…

My point wasn't about the patch version it's about the software being called "beta" while the version doesn't reflect that at all.

If the api is fixed and its just bug fixes before release why isn't this 1.0.0-beta or -rcN, with a 1.0.0 (a vanilla version is always considered higher than one with an identifier like "-beta" or "-rc1"

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#134

Post by Argorak »

johnsea wrote: post #130
Argorak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he got "thrown under the bus" - he moved to a position were others did not want to defend him or even just keep on. Unsurprisingly, I would add, he should know the other people. Still, the inclusion shows that not all bridges are burned, which makes me happy.

I don't see truth in your statement that core people did not want to defend him. Shitstorm happened mostly by outsiders/ignorants. He didn't want to continue in such a climate. Joyent wrote a blog post that ruined their reputation. - Good net effect one year later is that node might free themself from Joyent and become much more open/inclusive.

My comment starts with "I (don't) think". Feel free to think otherwise, but my statement has truth - I know what I think.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#135

Post by DennisP »

malkia wrote: post #52

Without reading, just looking I thought it would be about Steve Dekorte's Io Language targeting javascript.

Same here, got my hopes up. Kinda wish they hadn't overloaded that name.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#137

Post by benihana »

duncanawoods wrote: post #98

In their words, io.js is "A spork of Node.js with an open governance model". Hmm. Lets hope the spork gets spooned so that no projects get knifed. If not then I guess we have to hope for a knork so we don't get stuck with a couple of chopsticks. Glossary Forking : Creating a fork to intentionally diverge from main-line development. Spooning : Merging a fork back into the main line of a project Sporking : Creating a f…

groan

Don't get me wrong, thanks for the information. But seriously. It's like when you come up with a whimsical naming scheme for your home network devices and you get trapped in that naming scheme and have to come up with more and more obscure Lithuanian folk demons that fit into your conventions and it becomes a parody of itself and you're not sure if you're serious or joking anymore.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#138

Post by stephenr »

diggan wrote: post #132
stephenr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make sense to release beta quality software as "v1.0.0" without any reference to being a beta in the version itself. Either use a 0.x version or use a -beta -identifier if the api is fixed but stability is not guaranteed

It does say "Version 1.0.1 (Beta stability)", what more are you requesting?

The "(Beta stability)" is just text on that webpage. The version is just 1.0.1.

By any sane logic any release after 1.x should be considered stable UNLESS otherwise stated.

This is why we have the concepts of things like "dev", "alpha", "beta", "rc" (release candidate) identifiers for versions.

Nowhere does io.js use any of these terms except in that homepage. So now, anyone relying on any other source to get the product either as source or in a binary package has no way to know if it's considered "stable" yet.

So what I want - basic common fucking sense is what I want. Nobody in their right mind would release software marked as version "1.0.0" with full knowledge and even the barest of acknowledgement, that it's only beta quality.

The explanation I've seen so far is that the people behind the fork are sick of NodeJS never reaching 1.0 despite being used in production. Sure thats a good reason to make it 1.0 - because a heap of cool kids have jumped on the bandwagon and bet their business on it, it must be stable right?

Oh wait, but then they admit that it's only beta quality. So they want it to be versioned as if it's appropriate to use it in production, but they know its actually not.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#139

Post by tuananh »

stepstep wrote: post #85
tuananh wrote: post #82

it seems it uninstall `node` when install itself.

It just overwrites the node symlink. > "This package will install io.js v1.0.0 and npm v2.1.18 into /usr/local/. The binary /usr/local/bin/iojs will also be symlinked as /usr/local/bin/node."

i was talking about windows installer.
Post reply on HN