4 ms·
I'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 m
by AndrewHampton 11y ago
I'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 11y 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 11y agoThanks for the info, as an outsider, it is a bit difficult to wade into the long discussions.
- Siecje 11y agoWouldn't it be better to use io.js as the code base?
- serve_yay 11y agoInteresting, thanks for the info.
- Flenser 11y 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