5 ms·

Oh no, don't let David Mark hear about this one. I've had issues with jQuery upgrades causing problems in the past. Changing jQuery versions has come to be so

Oh no, don't let David Mark hear about this one. I've had issues with jQuery upgrades causing problems in the past. Changing jQuery versions has come to be something that I'm wary of, as everything must be carefully tested in each browser. It's more complex than just checking a layout or running your app through each part once, you have to really simulate several user sessions to see if anything feels off.

riffraff 16y ago
for reference, David Mark on jQuery http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/37cb11852d7ca75c?hl=en&#38 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/37cb...;
- ot 16y ago
  It seems that his (valid) criticisms are about some implementation details (hence fixable without changing the library interface) and the message is almost two years old. Have things improved since then?
  - jeresig 16y ago
    I don't think any of the points that were mentioned in his post are relevant any longer (not that many of the issues that he mentioned were entirely relevant to begin with, mostly just excessive grandstanding over minutia).
- code_duck 16y ago
  Oh, it goes on from that. He makes bizarre comments about jQuery every chance he gets (strange, immature snipes like "your jQuery is showing"). He's obsessed. I just mentioned what I did because I know it would make him feel so vindicated... he's essentially claimed before that jQuery is the reason for all of the world's JavaScript errors.
jeresig 16y ago
At a fundamental level people end up putting jQuery through a huge number of unknown situations (millions of users on even more web sites in even weirder browsers). While we certainly strive to have as few issues pop up as possible they seem to be an inevitability. That being said we aren't satisfied with the number of regressions that currently pop up and have instituted a number of changes into our development process: - Significant core rewrites now only occur during major (1.x) releases. - New features are only added during major releases. - APIs are only added/removed/changed during major releases (unchanged, we've always done this). - Behavior of specific API calls are only changed during major releases. We've also changed our workflow. We're now doing minor (1.x.x) releases roughly every month and major (1.x) releases every three months. Thus we can still get a good flow of good features out in a consistent manner. I should also mention that the jQuery core development team has many more people helping out now. Active participation has always been a challenge for the team (bug triage and fixing isn't very glamorous). We now have about 8 people who are entirely dedicated to bug triage, test case creation, and prioritization. These people work closely with the core dev team (which has recently more than doubled in size). All of this will help to significantly improve the quality of releases (and has done so quite well with 1.4.4 - 1.4.4 was a very good release, better than 1.4.3. I suspect that if Twitter had issues with upgrading from 1.4.2 to 1.4.4 it was because they had issues with 1.4.3).

riffraff 16y ago

for reference, David Mark on jQuery http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/37cb11852d7ca75c?hl=en&#38 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/37cb...;

ot 16y ago
It seems that his (valid) criticisms are about some implementation details (hence fixable without changing the library interface) and the message is almost two years old. Have things improved since then?
- jeresig 16y ago
  I don't think any of the points that were mentioned in his post are relevant any longer (not that many of the issues that he mentioned were entirely relevant to begin with, mostly just excessive grandstanding over minutia).
code_duck 16y ago
Oh, it goes on from that. He makes bizarre comments about jQuery every chance he gets (strange, immature snipes like "your jQuery is showing"). He's obsessed. I just mentioned what I did because I know it would make him feel so vindicated... he's essentially claimed before that jQuery is the reason for all of the world's JavaScript errors.

jeresig 16y ago

At a fundamental level people end up putting jQuery through a huge number of unknown situations (millions of users on even more web sites in even weirder browsers). While we certainly strive to have as few issues pop up as possible they seem to be an inevitability. That being said we aren't satisfied with the number of regressions that currently pop up and have instituted a number of changes into our development process: - Significant core rewrites now only occur during major (1.x) releases. - New features are only added during major releases. - APIs are only added/removed/changed during major releases (unchanged, we've always done this). - Behavior of specific API calls are only changed during major releases. We've also changed our workflow. We're now doing minor (1.x.x) releases roughly every month and major (1.x) releases every three months. Thus we can still get a good flow of good features out in a consistent manner. I should also mention that the jQuery core development team has many more people helping out now. Active participation has always been a challenge for the team (bug triage and fixing isn't very glamorous). We now have about 8 people who are entirely dedicated to bug triage, test case creation, and prioritization. These people work closely with the core dev team (which has recently more than doubled in size). All of this will help to significantly improve the quality of releases (and has done so quite well with 1.4.4 - 1.4.4 was a very good release, better than 1.4.3. I suspect that if Twitter had issues with upgrading from 1.4.2 to 1.4.4 it was because they had issues with 1.4.3).