Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Philip Hands (2017-01-06 15:48:07)
> Jonas Smedegaard  writes:
>> Do I understand you correctly that you recommend that we all tell our 
>> users - e.g. in release notes - something like this: "We acknowledge 
>> that the Nodejs included in this release is outdated, and recommend 
>> that you avoid it: Please instead subscribe to our snapshot 
>> repository and use the newer (but lesser supported) version from 
>> there."?
>
> I wasn't going as far as recommending anything -- I was just trying to 
> cover various aspects of this in the hope that we might then discuss 
> the pros and cons of the choices available before the release rather 
> than drifting into doing something that doesn't really suit anyone 
> very well.  I don't know enough about the implications of upgrading to 
> have any strong opinions about what the best course of action might 
> be.
> 
> It just struck me that to have v4 enter Debian stable just at the 
> point that it drops out of Node.js LTS is unlikely to be the optimal 
> choice.

Makes sense. Thanks!

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Philip Hands]

Jérémy Lal  writes:

> 2017-01-06 12:53 GMT+01:00 Philip Hands :
>> Jérémy Lal  writes:
>>
>>> 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
 On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
 The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
>>>
>>> This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
>>> maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
>>> and that i can even do alone.
>>
>> Your "This is not very smart" comment made me react fairly negatively at
>> first reading.  It's easy to assume bad things about the old version's
>> stability reading that, although that's presumably not what you were
>> saying.
>
> I'm asking you to forgive me about that wording, it was driven by my
> disappointment,
> and the reason the package is in this situation is mainly my own fault
> and lack of time.

Nothing to forgive from my point of view -- you just happened not to be
making your case very persuasively.

Feel free to tell us all how there's no problem rebuilding/testing the
thousand-odd node-* packages, or that they don't need rebuilding or
testing, or whatever the case might be, such that people might be moved
to agree with you.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Philip Hands]

Jonas Smedegaard  writes:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for looking into this!
>
> Quoting Philip Hands (2017-01-06 12:53:10)
>> Jérémy Lal  writes:
>> 
>> > 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
>> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> >>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian 
>> >>> release.
>> >>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
>> >>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
>> >>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
>> >>> #849505.
>> >>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
>> >>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
>> >> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
>> >
>> > This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
>> > maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
>> > and that i can even do alone.
>> 
>> Your "This is not very smart" comment made me react fairly negatively at
>> first reading.  It's easy to assume bad things about the old version's
>> stability reading that, although that's presumably not what you were
>> saying.
>> 
>> Having looked into it a little, I found this:
>> 
>>   https://github.com/nodejs/LTS
>> 
>> which shows that the current packaged v4 packages will drop out of LTS
>> in April, and out of maintenance a year later according to this:
>> 
>>   https://hackernoon.com/node-js-v6-transitions-to-lts-be7f18c17159
>> 
>> Version 6, which Jérémy is suggesting should be our stable release
>> version, has been in LTS mode since October, and will be in LTS mode
>> until Apr 2018, then maintenance (presumably until Apr 2019).
>> 
>> I suspect that in a couple of years time, that Node.js programmers will
>> not be that much more impressed with v6 than they will be with v4, since
>> both will be astonishingly ancient, but at least v6 buys us an extra
>> year of usefulness.
>
> Until this point I thought you would summarize with a suggestion that we 
> get v6 included in next stable Debian release (i.e. a plea to the 
> release team to make an exception from their general rules).
>
>> I suspect that it might be better for all concerned if we simply
>> encouraged people to use this via backports from the start, to avoid the
>> problem of fast-moving projects getting preserved in amber by Debian.
>
> Do I understand you correctly that you recommend that we all tell our 
> users - e.g. in release notes - something like this: "We acknowledge 
> that the Nodejs included in this release is outdated, and recommend that 
> you avoid it: Please instead subscribe to our snapshot repository and 
> use the newer (but lesser supported) version from there."?

I wasn't going as far as recommending anything -- I was just trying to
cover various aspects of this in the hope that we might then discuss the
pros and cons of the choices available before the release rather than
drifting into doing something that doesn't really suit anyone very
well.  I don't know enough about the implications of upgrading to have
any strong opinions about what the best course of action might be.

It just struck me that to have v4 enter Debian stable just at the point
that it drops out of Node.js LTS is unlikely to be the optimal choice.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jérémy Lal]

2017-01-06 12:53 GMT+01:00 Philip Hands :
> Jérémy Lal  writes:
>
>> 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
 No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
 is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
>>> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
>>
>> This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
>> maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
>> and that i can even do alone.
>
> Your "This is not very smart" comment made me react fairly negatively at
> first reading.  It's easy to assume bad things about the old version's
> stability reading that, although that's presumably not what you were
> saying.

I'm asking you to forgive me about that wording, it was driven by my
disappointment,
and the reason the package is in this situation is mainly my own fault
and lack of time.

Jérémy

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for looking into this!

Quoting Philip Hands (2017-01-06 12:53:10)
> Jérémy Lal  writes:
> 
> > 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
> >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
> >>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
> >>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
> >>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
> >>> #849505.
> >>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
> >>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
> >> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
> >
> > This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
> > maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
> > and that i can even do alone.
> 
> Your "This is not very smart" comment made me react fairly negatively at
> first reading.  It's easy to assume bad things about the old version's
> stability reading that, although that's presumably not what you were
> saying.
> 
> Having looked into it a little, I found this:
> 
>   https://github.com/nodejs/LTS
> 
> which shows that the current packaged v4 packages will drop out of LTS
> in April, and out of maintenance a year later according to this:
> 
>   https://hackernoon.com/node-js-v6-transitions-to-lts-be7f18c17159
> 
> Version 6, which Jérémy is suggesting should be our stable release
> version, has been in LTS mode since October, and will be in LTS mode
> until Apr 2018, then maintenance (presumably until Apr 2019).
> 
> I suspect that in a couple of years time, that Node.js programmers will
> not be that much more impressed with v6 than they will be with v4, since
> both will be astonishingly ancient, but at least v6 buys us an extra
> year of usefulness.

Until this point I thought you would summarize with a suggestion that we 
get v6 included in next stable Debian release (i.e. a plea to the 
release team to make an exception from their general rules).

> I suspect that it might be better for all concerned if we simply
> encouraged people to use this via backports from the start, to avoid the
> problem of fast-moving projects getting preserved in amber by Debian.

Do I understand you correctly that you recommend that we all tell our 
users - e.g. in release notes - something like this: "We acknowledge 
that the Nodejs included in this release is outdated, and recommend that 
you avoid it: Please instead subscribe to our snapshot repository and 
use the newer (but lesser supported) version from there."?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Philip Hands]

Jérémy Lal  writes:

> 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
>>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
>>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
>>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
>>> #849505.
>>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
>>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
>> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
>
> This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
> maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
> and that i can even do alone.

Your "This is not very smart" comment made me react fairly negatively at
first reading.  It's easy to assume bad things about the old version's
stability reading that, although that's presumably not what you were
saying.

Having looked into it a little, I found this:

  https://github.com/nodejs/LTS

which shows that the current packaged v4 packages will drop out of LTS
in April, and out of maintenance a year later according to this:

  https://hackernoon.com/node-js-v6-transitions-to-lts-be7f18c17159

Version 6, which Jérémy is suggesting should be our stable release
version, has been in LTS mode since October, and will be in LTS mode
until Apr 2018, then maintenance (presumably until Apr 2019).

I suspect that in a couple of years time, that Node.js programmers will
not be that much more impressed with v6 than they will be with v4, since
both will be astonishingly ancient, but at least v6 buys us an extra
year of usefulness.

I suspect that it might be better for all concerned if we simply
encouraged people to use this via backports from the start, to avoid the
problem of fast-moving projects getting preserved in amber by Debian.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jérémy Lal (2017-01-04 10:12:44)
> 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
>>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
>>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
>>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
>>> #849505.
>>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
>>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
>> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.
>
> This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make 
> future maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy 
> to do and that i can even do alone.
> Contrast this with an openssl 1.1 upload few days before the 
> transition freeze. I don't get it.

libssl transition was coordinated with the release team well before the 
freeze.

Apart from giving up and let things rest as they are (or fall apart and 
get kicked out), I believe there is also the option of asking the 
release team for permission to do the transition even if late.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jérémy Lal]

2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin :
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
>> #849505.
>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
> The transition freeze was on Nov 5.

This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make future
maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy to do
and that i can even do alone.
Contrast this with an openssl 1.1 upload few days before the transition freeze.
I don't get it.

Jérémy

Re: nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
> #849505.
> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?
The transition freeze was on Nov 5.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

nodejs 6.9 in unstable, manual transition, schedule

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi,

i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian release.
That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it
to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons
that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug
#849505.
No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages
is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ?

Jérémy