On 12 August 2016 at 04:04, Zuzana Svetlikova <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Unless we decide to go the "both lts versions" path,
I'd update nodejs.
I see no point in having packages, that are unmaintained by upstream, in
the repo.
No problem. I am just wanting to get the correct picture of the plan
in my head .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge(a)gmail.com>
To: "EPEL Development List" <epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: "Zuzana Svetlikova" <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com>,
epel-devel-list(a)redhat.com, epel-devel(a)fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update
On 11 August 2016 at 07:43, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> tl;dr Need to update nodejs, but can't decide if v4 or v6,
>> v4: will update sooner, shorter support (2018-04-01)
>> v6: longer support (2019-04-01), *might* break more things,
>> won't be in stable sooner than mid-October if everything
>> goes well
>
> FYI, I think this tl;dr missed explaining why v6 won't be in stable until
> mid-October. What Zuzana and I discussed on another list is that the Node.js v6
> schedule has it going into LTS mode on the same day that 0.10.x reaches EOL.
> However, v6 is already out and available. The major thing that changes at that
> point is just that from then on, they commit to adding no more major features
> (as I understand it). This is the best moment for us to switch over to it.
>
> However, in the meantime we will probably want to be carrying 6.x in
> updates-testing for at least a month prior to declaring it stable (with
> autokarma disabled) with wide announcements about the impending upgrade. This
> will be safe to do since Node.js 6.x has already reached a point where no
> backwards-incompatible changes are allowed in, so we can start the migration
> process early.
>
How will the packages be named? Are we doing this as nodejs6 or nodejs?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.