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

[Dan Little]

With new Bing layers. ;-)

On Nov 27, 2017 11:16, "Brent Fraser" <bfraser at geoanalytic.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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/20171127/805766da/attachment.html>