Node.js 0.10.0 was released on March 11, 2013. 0.12.0 was released almost 2 years later on Feb 6, 2015. By all accounts 0.12 isn't even a major change over 0.10.
The io.js team has done more in a few months than Joyent did in 2 years.
I, personally, don't care if node.js and io.js ever merge. One is clearly a superior product with a superior open source governance model.
This seems a bit one-sided. What Joyent has been doing is called "maintaining production software." That's something I've been missing in the web world lately. It's surprisingly hard to find high quality libraries that don't change all the time (that is, break all the time). Libraries like jQuery, normalize.css, and Lodash are the exception here. They're some of the few libraries that I'm comfortable guessing will look pretty much the same they do now a year from now.
That is not to say that I don't want to write my gulpfiles in ES6 as much as everybody else, but you have to understand that this whole forking thing scares off people who are looking for a platform they can invest significant time and money into (that is, write more than a million lines of code for).
With that much change in such a short time, it would be extremely optimistic to think something didnt break. If I had a lot of production code depending on node, those numbers would scare the crap out of me.
You can absolutely migrate angular 1 to angular 2. Following good practices (i.e not having 4k line controllers) that were place since its inception only makes that migration easier.
That's about 800000 additional lines of code for 49 developers in a months, or ~16000 LOC for each developer. Unless additions and deletions are counted on a different unit, can anyone knowledgeable explain to me how the numbers are reasonable at all?
Pulse [2] is just a neat github feature that gives you an overview of a project.
LOC will always be a shitty metric for anything.
[1] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/commit/56e4255382ad4d2426e0346...
I can imagine this makes up for a portion of it.
At some point people started to believe that this was not necessary. I am not sure of the legal implications, of either choice, just wanted to point out that the joyent people probably were not crazy :)
[0] e.g. a random file from ISC bind https://source.isc.org/git/?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=bin/rndc/rn...
It certainly was common, though, which is/was probably because the US did not join until 1989, and prior to that US copyright law required a mandatory copyright notice, so a lot of people will have at least worked on projects old enough for this policy to have mattered.
Maybe there should be a convention to add a copyright.txt file to websites like there is robots.txt and humans.txt?
Embedding the license makes sense because otherwise others have to assume they don't have the right to use. The copyright notice on the other hand is pointless.
Or is this just a cosmetic thing and they removed it from the files but kept it in a separate license file?
"The copyright and license notice is already in the LICENSE file. There is no justifiable reason to also require that it be included in every file, since the individual files are not individually distributed except as part of the entire package."
Maybe the person who removed the copyright was a node contributor?
Heh, maybe its the same person who put the copyright at the top of every file in the first place.
(I have no idea, just a guess)
We have since switched to io.js and I would seriously hesitate to use node.js, due to the seismic gap release pattern, which is actually more likely to create issues. Node.js is definitely not "more stable" as Joyent like to claim.
io.js has almost all of the core developers from the original node.js, which is now basically just a ghost town.
For stability, critical fixes and core developer support go with io.js.
Just like Sun does to Java, Microsoft does to C#, Google does to Golang. It's beneficial.
Joyent is a company of merit that stays out of politics. Integrity trumps popularity, sure it it can ruffle feathers time to time. Why not just enjoy the support and let things coast?
Edit: If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd like to see it. Name one time Joyent ever made a mistake in their open source stewardship.
Failing to ship a new release, how is that Joyent's fault? It's core developers who are to blame.
I don't understand the point of the link you sent me. How would a gender neutral alienate people? The person they were talking about here wasn't an employee.
But why would Joyent consider rejecting a PR for gender pronouns as a fireable offense? Probably a website defacement / practical joke.
Edit: FYI - I don't follow this. I don't understand why a fork even exists.
You really are out of the loop. The core developers were frustrated at Joyent not pushing their code, so they jumped ship. Joyent was the steward of the codebase, and they were at fault for not incorporating the developers' work.
How would a gender neutral alienate people?
It's the manner in which they handled the issue that was alienating. Screaming about how tolerant they are, all while screwing over one of their primary contributors, demonising him, and saying he'd be fired rather than retrained. They were soapboxing for cheap political points rather than actually being tolerant and understanding. It's why I actually laughed out loud when you described Joyent as a company that doesn't get involved in politics.
The irony is that the developer in question isn't a native speaker of English, and his native tongue is a gendered language, which likely contributed to his blase attitude on the matter. A little understanding, tolerance, and mature discussion and correction (instead of soapboxing) would have gone a long way.
his native tongue is a gendered language, which likely contributed to his blase attitude on the matter.
I can't some people have such amazing talent, earn our trust, yet display a shocking display of actions that go against their interest.
Linguistics and humanities is basically the art of diversity. Yet, for some people, diversity is just a word to convey a twisted oppression.
You mean the same core developers of io.js, who clearly are shipping now that Joyent is out of the loop?
That wasn't a rejection because of gender pronouns. That was a rejection because one pronoun was changed from the docs, instead of all of them. This leads to:
- minor change, not suitable for a PR
- inconsistency, either change all of them to match, or leave them alone
Because community pressure, basically. When there's an angry mob outside about to burn your company down, do you just give them who they want or let your company burn and have everyone else fired too?
I'm confused what you are asking. The parent post indicates that node.js in fact has fewer contributions (over the last month).
Iojs: 49 authors have pushed 168 commits to master and 572 commits to all branches. On master, 8,474 files have changed and there have been 1,524,012 additions and 708,276 deletions.
Node: 30 authors have pushed 5 commits to master and 95 commits to all branches. On master, 10 files have changed and there have been 294 additions and 36 deletions.
That's for the last month.