Thanks very much for the info. On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 6:27:11 PM UTC-5, Jakob Kummerow wrote: > > Like any embedder, they should be using *the tip of the branch that's > used in stable Chrome*. ( <-- That's your writeup.) >
Part of the problem here is I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to branches. https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git and https://github.com/v8/v8-git-mirror list: - master <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/master> - candidate <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/candidate> - candidates <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/candidates> - lkgr <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/lkgr> - roll <https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git/+/roll> None of these look anything like the 3.29 you cite. > Typically that's the exact same version as what Chrome stable ships, > unless we've already merged back a patch or two that hasn't been picked up > by a Chrome stable refresh yet. > > Current example: Chrome stable (M39) uses V8 3.29, that branch's tip as of > right now is 3.29.88.19 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://codereview.chromium.org/760283005&sa=D&usg=ALhdy2-qyq6p1FOFRvkukdUIn9L8D5akaA>, > > the latest Chrome M39 build comes with 3.29.88.17 (see > https://omahaproxy.appspot.com/). > > Using a dev channel quality branch like 3.31 right now is a risky > decision. You can argue that it's just for an alpha release, but as the > classes example demonstrates, anything could happen to a branch before it's > considered stable. (In fact, I would guess that classes support will be > turned off on that branch, but the ES6 guys should confirm that.) > > Since Chrome M40 will go to stable soon, using V8 3.30 now (more > precisely: 3.30.33.14 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://codereview.chromium.org/831243005&sa=D&usg=ALhdy28doiZIqp5LsuaHUvJ99-c573zjvA>) > might > be a reasonable compromise. > > The next V8 branch, as always, will be cut in time for the next (M42) > Chrome branch, i.e. ~6 weeks from now, and won't be recommended until it > hits the Chrome stable channel another ~6 weeks later. > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> io.js (the actively-maintained Node.js fork) is shipping their first >> alpha on 2015-01-12, i.e. in four days. They were planning on shipping with >> V8 3.31.74.1, but the recent reversion of classes has them worried that >> shipping classes to their community would be a bad move. I would expect a >> large number of people to start downloading and using this alpha, probably >> not in production, but certainly for the creation of reusable code that may >> have a decent shelf-life. >> >> What should they be doing here? Can they count on a new 3.32 release >> being cut soon, that they can use to avoid shipping classes? Is 3.31.74.1 >> OK? Other options? >> >> Relatedly, last time I had a conversation about what V8 versions >> Node/iojs should be using, it turned out there was some confusion. I asked >> for a guideline for what versions embedders should be using to be written >> up, but I don't think it happened. Could we do that, regardless? >> >> -- >> -- >> v8-users mailing list >> [email protected] <javascript:> >> http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "v8-users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- v8-users mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
