A new way of describing "stability"

[junosuarez]

The first thing people see when they go to iojs.org is "JavaScript I/O", then the current version number, then the disclaimer "(Unstable*)"

While this is true, it's also a bit of a cop out and doesn't help someone make a decision of whether or not to spend more time investigating io.js, which of course we want them to do, while being aware of its suitability to their needs.

I really like what rethinkdb has done on their page, breaking the amorphous idea of "stability" into a matrix of particular concerns, with a brief plain-language note on each:

http://rethinkdb.com/stability/

[mikeal]

I expect this to come up in the next TC meeting, I don't think @piscisaureus likes it being described as unstable either.

[therebelrobot]

+1

[mikeal]

Why don't we just remove the term "unstable" until we have a stable and unstable line?

[piscisaureus]

Why don't we just remove the term "unstable" until we have a stable and unstable line?

+1. I'll bring it up at the tc meeting

[nelsonpecora]

👍 if I understand semver correctly, wouldn't "unstable" releases just be denoted by a -something after the version number? (e.g. v1.1.0-a8s7d or v1.1.0-beta34)

[mikeal]

We talked about this in the TC meeting but it happened shortly after we accepted the idea that Working Groups have autonomy over decisions like this. So, this is the website WG's call :)

+1 on removing stable :)

[snostorm]

We bounced between a few language choices (beta/alpha/unstable) in the rush around v1.0.0. The general consensus, then, was to put a warning to make sure people didn't jump in too early thinking the first release was a "1.0 version of Node.js"

Now that we're a few weeks in, I'm not against removing it, but here's another alternative: we prep the space/layout for how we plan to present stable vs unstable links, leaving stable blank, but putting in the expected date or something

[ Stable | v1.x.x | Expected Feb 2015 ]
[ Unstable | v1.0.5 | Download - Changelog - ... ]

We can keep the existing * Unstable? Learn more about how we version io.js. type link as well, or expand on that a bit (space permitting.)

Edit: perhaps the new footer explanation text could instead communicate something like * io.js plans to promote the latest unstable version to stable once the included V8 engine is out of beta. But somehow worded better.

[mikeal]

I think the biggest concern people have is that, right now, our messaging of "stability" is viewed solely in terms of how it compares to node.js. In that comparison I think it's fair to remove "unstable" from the current messaging as we are a mountain of bug fixes and improvements in both node and v8 from the last stable release of node.js.

Once we have concurrent lines of releases we can talk about how to best message them. Copying Chrome's "Canary" term may be better than using "unstable" but that's a problem for another day :)

[ruimarinho]

Agreed. I think we should just remove the "unstable" wording from the homepage and not mention different release trains for now until it is actually a reality. People are used to the semver world and for me, io.js is already more stable than any other release of node.js.

[snostorm]

My one reservation about not including some sort of messaging (which can be way more subtle than the in your face UNSTABLE label we have now) is the fact we still have many broken 3rd party npm modules via nodejs/node#456 and some confusion over installing multiple versions of io.js/node together, etc.

Let's table it until Monday's WG then go from there. I'm happy to retire this once we have a few resources up to help users through some of these hiccups. A few more days of showing "unstable" likely will do no long term harm.

[snostorm]

Cross-linking next WG meeting @ #92

[Fishrock123]

@snostorm oops, didn't see this. TC has recommended we don't display Unstable though.

[Fishrock123]

(also I forgot my commit would close this, didn't mean that part)

[snostorm]

Oh, this came from TC? I feel better about it :) Well, we can still discuss improving "stability" communication as part of the WG meeting. My main concern was just helping users know the pros/cons of the project in its current state.

[greim]

In early 2014, I began a new project based on 0.11 intending to release within a year, hoping that within that time 0.12 would arrive and I could move the project over to that. Ha ha.

Anyway, so I'm obviously looking really hard at iojs right now but the unstable moniker gave me pause, and I wonder how many others are in the same boat (e.g. koa/co users.) I'd like to get a sense of which unstability is worse, that of 0.11 or that of 1.0, and if it would be worth migrating now or wait until March or whenever.

So put that in the TC pipe and smoke it :)

[snostorm]

To me, the label was supposed to do just that -- give pause -- especially with the 1.0.0 being our first public release ever. With some npm modules still breaking against io.js (mostly compiled ones, 90% due to things like native v8 library changes**), I still wouldn't consider it a magic, no work drop-in for any project.

** note, similar breakage can occur for people moving from 0.11 to 0.12, this isn't an io.js-specific concern

Thanks for the feedback @greim

[Fishrock123]

From the WG meeting today: This will probably be replaced by a link to a migrating from node -> io.js or similar as described in #64.

[Fishrock123]

(Reason being: io.js is Stable, but it's a major upgrade and thing you are using may not be compatible.)