4 ms·
So did io.js decide to turn down the proposal from the node upsteam folks to merge and turn it into a non-joyent controlled foundation? Seems sad to take so muc
by SEJeff 12y ago
So did io.js decide to turn down the proposal from the node upsteam folks to merge and turn it into a non-joyent controlled foundation? Seems sad to take so much brand and toss it down the toilet even if most of the development has moved to io.js.
- AndrewHampton 12y agoI've been listening to the iojs technical committee calls and they're moving forward with that in parallel with new development. It sounds like they think the merge is likely, but not guaranteed, and it may be a months long process. So they don't want to stop development for that much time and wait for the merge to complete.
- random28345 12y agoDiverging more, and obstensibly adding more value over the "baseline" node.js, gives the io.js committers more "leverage" in governance discussions. It also arguably reduces the chances of a successful reunification. Still, it's a good thing overall. There's enough interest in Javascript that demand for a javascript application server isn't going away, and having a headline project that pushes the envelope is a way to keep innovation and interest in the ecosystem.
- SEJeff 12y agoThanks for the info, as an outsider, it is a bit difficult to wade into the long discussions.
- Siecje 12y agoWouldn't it be better to use io.js as the code base?
- serve_yay 12y agoInteresting, thanks for the info.
- Flenser 12y agoI hope Bryan Cantrill will do a follow up of sorts to Corporate Open Source Anti-patterns[1] once this is all settled. It would be interesting to know what lessons there are to learn from this. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pm8P4oCIY3g https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pm8P4oCIY3g
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- untog 12y agoI can see a situation where we end up with both - io.js as the 'unstable' branch, that merges back into Node at milestones. Nothing announced here would stop that.