On 04/27/2016 10:00 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 26 April 2016 at 22:00, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> OK folks, it's Bad Decision Time. >>> >> >>> I realize this is inopportune, but it's best if we figure out *immediately* how >>> we're going to handle this. >>> >>> >>> Options: >>> 1) Downgrade back to 4.x, downgrading or dropping any modules in the collection >>> that don't run on that LTS version. >>> 2) Stick with 5.x for the life of Fedora 24, handling security backports >>> ourselves once it hits EOL this summer. >>> 3) Upgrade to 6.x, fixing or dropping any modules in the collection that don't >>> run on it yet. >>> >> >> 4) Drop NodeJS from Fedora 24 altogether. If there isn't one already, >> have a nodejs team built of people who are interested in it and are >> committed to doing things like side builds and similar requirements. > We have that already. The Node.js SIG exists, but I've been acting as coordinator for the base pieces. I'm going to be stepping down from that soon (which is why I asked for someone to step up there), but there *are* people doing plenty of other work (notably Tom Hughes and Jared Smith). > That would be a pretty big regression considering it has been in > Fedora for a while. The user experience of needing nodejs and then > having to hunt for it after upgrade seems poor. > Yeah, not acceptable in my opinion. >> They can then have a plan on what nodejs work should be done and what >> plans they will align on. This would be similar to the perl/python and >> other groups.. and makes sure that when someone bows out it doesn't >> kill the entire stack until someone comes in to build the work again. > > I don't disagree having a nodejs team would be a good idea, but I > think you're being a bit unfair to Stephen. He hasn't bowed out yet > and even a well intentioned nodejs team could have made the same > choices that led to this situation. > For the record, we *did* have a team that made these choices. When I suggested moving to Node 5 to avoid an issue we introduced with a version discrepancy between upstream and Fedora's npm delivery, we failed to notice the maintenance schedule incompatibility. So now we're trying to figure out how best to resolve it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
