3 ms·

I remember reading of Babel maintainers releasing betas and asking for feedback but not many helped; most just came to complain after the release. Webpack 4 ha

I remember reading of Babel maintainers releasing betas and asking for feedback but not many helped; most just came to complain after the release. Webpack 4 has been in beta for a while but not enough people tested it on real projects, evidently.

vanderZwan 9y ago
Well, when there isn't enough documentation, yet so many breaking changes are introduced, then I don't really see how exactly people should have managed to get it to work to test it on real projects.
- bfred_it 9y ago
  You're not wrong; documentation especially for migrating is poor. Having to google one error at a time is annoying.
- btown 9y ago
  Yep - either introduce redesigned APIs with deprecation warnings in minor releases, or at least build codemods. Make it so that if you fix everything deprecated, you can upgrade with minimal effort. React itself does this, for instance.
sho 9y ago
> Webpack 4 has been in beta for a while Perhaps the naming is sending the wrong message? "Beta" sounds incomplete and subject to change; I certainly don't make a habit of introducing betas to serious projects unless there's something in them I'm desperate for. An extended period of Release Candidate versions could give end users more confidence in adoption. This naming implies that the product is finalised and will be released as-is barring serious bugs. It's a small thing, but maybe giving end users the feeling of being early adopters rather than beta testers could increase uptake in this final critical stage.
- rdsubhas 9y ago
  Or React's way of avoiding major version cliffs seems to have grown out of this problem. https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/02/19/new-versioning-scheme.html https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/02/19/new-versioning-scheme.ht... (skip to the major versions and avoiding cliffs part)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
karmajunkie 9y ago
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the beta process in the javascript ecosystem, but Webpack v4 went into beta on Jan 25 [1] and removed the beta label on Feb 25 [2]. That's not "a while". While I don't want to detract from the work of maintainers—webpack is a great tool that's central to the workflow of thousands—the lack of documentation coupled with an extremely brief beta period gives most of us the impression of a haphazard, half-baked release that we just aren't going to trust for at least several more point releases. [1] https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-beta-try-it-today-6b1d27d7d7e2 https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-beta-try-it-today-6b1d2... [2] https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-released-today-6cdb994702d4 https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-released-today-6cdb9947...

vanderZwan 9y ago

Well, when there isn't enough documentation, yet so many breaking changes are introduced, then I don't really see how exactly people should have managed to get it to work to test it on real projects.

bfred_it 9y ago
You're not wrong; documentation especially for migrating is poor. Having to google one error at a time is annoying.
btown 9y ago
Yep - either introduce redesigned APIs with deprecation warnings in minor releases, or at least build codemods. Make it so that if you fix everything deprecated, you can upgrade with minimal effort. React itself does this, for instance.

sho 9y ago

> Webpack 4 has been in beta for a while Perhaps the naming is sending the wrong message? "Beta" sounds incomplete and subject to change; I certainly don't make a habit of introducing betas to serious projects unless there's something in them I'm desperate for. An extended period of Release Candidate versions could give end users more confidence in adoption. This naming implies that the product is finalised and will be released as-is barring serious bugs. It's a small thing, but maybe giving end users the feeling of being early adopters rather than beta testers could increase uptake in this final critical stage.

rdsubhas 9y ago
Or React's way of avoiding major version cliffs seems to have grown out of this problem. https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/02/19/new-versioning-scheme.html https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/02/19/new-versioning-scheme.ht... (skip to the major versions and avoiding cliffs part)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

karmajunkie 9y ago

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the beta process in the javascript ecosystem, but Webpack v4 went into beta on Jan 25 [1] and removed the beta label on Feb 25 [2]. That's not "a while". While I don't want to detract from the work of maintainers—webpack is a great tool that's central to the workflow of thousands—the lack of documentation coupled with an extremely brief beta period gives most of us the impression of a haphazard, half-baked release that we just aren't going to trust for at least several more point releases. [1] https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-beta-try-it-today-6b1d27d7d7e2 https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-beta-try-it-today-6b1d2... [2] https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-released-today-6cdb994702d4 https://medium.com/webpack/webpack-4-released-today-6cdb9947...