3 ms·
I wonder if cdnjs rates are any better. It's too bad more sites don't use CDNs. Nothing loads faster than a warm cache and they remove the unnecessary added co
by EvanPlaice 12y ago
I wonder if cdnjs rates are any better.
It's too bad more sites don't use CDNs. Nothing loads faster than a warm cache and they remove the unnecessary added complexity of managing third-party scripts in source control.
It would help if the Open Source dev community could revise their versioning practices to include long-term releases and post those to a CDN.
Unfortunately, the current standard is to backward-compatibility-breaking API changes in major versions. API changes that will likely introduce new bugs.
It would be cool if we started using a convention where the last update prior to a new major version release is marked as final; thereby deprecating all previous minor versions in that series. OSS developer library projects usually don't have the time/resources to waste maintaining old code anyway.
For example use something like a bang to mark the final version. So, when major version 2.0 is released the final major version 1.x gets released as 1! for long-term support and everything previous gets deprecated.
It's a win/win. Bang versions get marked as for long term support (ideal for production environments) and everybody who depends on that API version get consolidated into using a single stable branch.
- nextw33k 12y agoWe already have a versioning plan with the three dot version numbers. As a developer using a library I should be able to use any minor or patch version without breakage. They should just add functions and fix bugs and regressions. Major version numbers mean something will break. The problem is that many library developers need to accept that as their core philosophy or downstream will end up fixing to a specific version. http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/ What the jQuery CDN doesn't do is offer a jquery-1.8.min.js or a jquery-1.min.js for me to always ensure I have an up-to-date and compatible library.