[geomoose-psc] GeoMoose Supported NodeJS Vesion(s)?

[Dan Little]

I think part of it is matching what the dev team is using.  NVM makes a lot
of the "hard parts" of different Node versions go away.  I'm +1 at having
an apologetic-policy of using the current LTS. Knowing that occasionally we
will be behind a little bit. That's just due to the limitations of project
resources.  We should publish that we strive to support current LTS in the
build-chain.

Also, Brent, WHERE'S THAT PR???

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:54 PM, James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com> wrote:

> Even though if we do a good job, most people won't ever have to build
> GeoMoose, my goal is to establish clear expectations for what is supported
> so that people who need to/want to build or debug GeoMoose can do so
> without a lot of guessing and without needing exotic system configurations.
>
> Maybe nvm makes which node version(s) largely moot.  Building on the
> production server generally isn't necessary/advised, so that isn't a huge
> deal.
>
> It could also potentially matter for people integrating GeoMoose 3 as a
> library into an existing app/page/etc.
>
> On Nov 14, 2017 10:55 AM, "Brent Fraser" <bfraser at geoanalytic.com> wrote:
>
>> Eli, Jim,
>>
>>   The build toolchain is more important now to us implementers because it
>> must be used to debug GeoMoose.  In the past it was possible to use the
>> Geomoose_dev.html file to load un-minified version of the code and use the
>> browser's debugger to step through the code.  The new dependency on NodeJS
>> for debugging is an added burden (but thankfully it is mitigated by the doc
>> Jim and Dan have written).
>>
>>   Since my exposure to NodeJS is minimal (I just used it to help me add
>> Bing layer types other than Aerial and Road), I am OK with choice A).
>>
>>   I wonder how many people debug Geomoose?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From*: "Eli Adam" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:23 AM
>> *To*: "Jim Klassen" <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>> *Cc*: "geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>> *Subject*: Re: [geomoose-psc] GeoMoose Supported NodeJS Vesion(s)?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I am trying to come up with a policy for which nodejs versions we
>> > officially support for the *build* toolchain. My general thoughts are
>>
>> Do we need a policy for the *build* toolchain?
>>
>> > either current LTS (8.9.1 now) or current and previous LTS (now 6.9.x).
>> > The benefits to two versions is it gives us and others more leeway when
>> > to update things. The benefit to one version is that is likely what we
>> > are testing in practice and it can simplify the build scripts.
>>
>> More than one version seems infeasible. We'll actively be working
>> with one. Maybe additional versions will work but that could be
>> happenstance, not design.
>>
>> >
>> > The nodejs release schedule is here [1]:
>> > Node 8.x became LTS on 2017-10-31 and will be supported until 2019-12.
>> > Node 6.x became LTS on 2016-10-18 and will be supported until 2019-4.
>> > Node 4.x became LTS on 2015-10-1 and will be supported until 2018-4.
>> > (We made some efforts to support this version at one point, but it has
>> > not been tested in a long time by me and probably doesn't currently work
>> > with GeoMoose).
>> >
>> > I also point out that 8.9.1 doesn't build out of the box on Ubuntu 14.04
>> > because the gcc version is not new enough. I'm pretty sure Jessie and
>> > 16.04 are ok with 8.9.1.
>> >
>> > So how do people feel about supporting:
>> >
>> > A) Current LTS version of nodejs only.
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > B) Current and previous LTS versions of nodejs.
>> >
>> >
>> > (Note: the demo server is still on Ubuntu 14.04 due to MapScript not
>> > being in Ubuntu 16.04. Of course GeoMoose 3 doesn't care about
>> > MapScript, but we are still hosting GeoMoose 2.9 demo which does. This
>> > could easily be split up so it isn't the end of the world, just where
>> > we're at now.)
>>
>>
>> C) Whatever one version is convenient based on a variety of factors
>> like MapScript running a previous version of the demo. Not to be
>> flippant, but since this an internal facing build tool, I'm not
>> convinced that we need a policy.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/nodejs/Release
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > geomoose-psc mailing list
>> > geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>> _______________________________________________
>> geomoose-psc mailing list
>> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20171127/35ba167b/attachment.html>