[geomoose-psc] GeoMoose Supported NodeJS Vesion(s)?
Brent Fraser
bfraser at geoanalytic.com
Mon Nov 27 09:17:13 PST 2017
Umm, which PR was that again?
Best Regards,
Brent Fraser
On 11/27/2017 9:14 AM, Dan Little wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:23 AM
> *To*: "Jim Klassen" <klassen.js at gmail.com
> <mailto:klassen.js at gmail.com>>
> *Cc*: "geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>"
> <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <https://github.com/nodejs/Release>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > geomoose-psc mailing list
> > geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20171127/07b42cc9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the geomoose-psc
mailing list