Listing breaking changes experienced in io.js (help wanted)

[rvagg]

@nodejs/collaborators

The LTS WG met yesterday to talk about maintenance and support plans, we'll be meeting each week from now on in order to get it all sorted out.

One of the major items is looking at the upgrade path for users with significant investments in 0.12 moving to the first LTS release from the converged project. We need to provide information (and possibly tools) to users to make this transition.

The way the converged repo has been formed takes io.js and adds in some of the pieces in 0.12 that are missing from io.js; this means that the leap between 0.12 and the converged release should (in theory) be easier than jumping to io.js for many users because there will be some gaps filled. However, there are still a bunch of breaking changes, as you'd expect for any major release.

@misterdjules has put together a great starting list of breaking changes at: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/wiki/Breaking-changes-between-v0.12-and-next-LTS-release using various sources of information. Your help in expanding this list would be appreciated.

What I'd really like from @nodejs/collaborators is a list of things that we know have broken but weren't anticipated to be broken and therefore were never labelled semver-major. Because we are starting with this codebase we should try and gather all of the experience that we've garnered over the time we've been releasing io.js and that goes beyond what we captured before releasing.

Could you please either discuss in here or make edits to the document if you are confident something is missing that should be there.

[misterdjules]

Thank you @rvagg, it is very much appreciated 👍

[brendanashworth]

I'm not sure if it counts as broken, but #1981 was a "regression" caused by a semver-minor commit that broke two modules. It has yet to be fixed, but may never, as I think it was deemed not a supported usecase.

[rvagg]

good one @brendanashworth, that's minor but might be worth noting

#1356 might classify in here as well although I don't have time to dig into the details to know if it's been resolved in #1488 or not. Basically when we changed require('.') we broke certain workflows with NODE_PATH.

[silverwind]

#1356 is not worth mentioning because it was fixed in #1363 with a deprecation message in place. The message and hack are going to be removed at some point in the future when #1452 lands.

[ChALkeR]

Is this still relevant?

[cjihrig]

I think this can be closed. If anyone reads this and uncovers any breaking changes that we missed, please do update the linked wiki.