Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

meta: clarify EoL platform support #25838

Conversation

joaocgreis
Copy link
Member

Use stronger wording about EoL platforms. Make it clear they can be removed at any time, as should happen with Windows 7/2008R2 next year when it becomes EoL.

cc @nodejs/build

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. labels Jan 31, 2019
BUILDING.md Outdated
For production applications, run Node.js on supported platforms only.

Note that end-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported even if listed below
Copy link
Member

@ChALkeR ChALkeR Jan 31, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: remove "Note that".

Copy link
Member

@ChALkeR ChALkeR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with a nit, but is there a reason to remove the old wording? Why not keep both? Those are complementary, as it looks to me.

@joaocgreis
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the reviews!

@ChALkeR added back the old wording.

BUILDING.md Outdated
Note that end-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported even if listed below
and can be removed at any moment.
End-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported even if listed below and can be
removed at any moment. The community does not build or test against EoL
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd be slightly concerned that this could be read as that we "can't" even if it's what we think need to be the case for some period of time. How about "The community avoids building or testing against EoL platforms"

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
removed at any moment. The community does not build or test against EoL
removed at any time. The community does not build or test against EoL

BUILDING.md Outdated
For production applications, run Node.js on supported platforms only.

End-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported even if listed below and can be
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
End-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported even if listed below and can be
End-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported, even if listed below, and can be

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Jan 31, 2019

I'd recommend removing the part about them being removed at any time. The important part is that they are unsupported. Removal from the table isn't really the issue, I hope?

End-of-life (EoL) platforms are not supported, even if listed below.
The community does not build or test against EoL platforms.

One problem left: We don't define end-of-life and there's no way for the reader to know from just this document which entries in the table this applies to. So maybe this?:

Node.js does not support a platform version if a vendor has expired support for
it. In other words, Node.js does not support running on End-of-life (EoL)
platforms. This is true regardless of entries in the table below.

With that wording, the reader knows we mean "EoL'ed by the vendor" as opposed to them perhaps wondering what platforms Node.js has EoL'ed.

@joaocgreis
Copy link
Member Author

@Trott thanks for your review! I've updated to your suggestion.

@mhdawson we can always make exceptions. Your suggestion sounds a bit contradictory to me, I'd prefer a clear message here about not supporting. I think "building and testing" is implied in "support", so I just removed that part. Let me know if you'd rather have it or have some other suggestion. (cc @ChALkeR)

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Feb 1, 2019

@Trott Trott added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Feb 1, 2019
@danbev
Copy link
Contributor

danbev commented Feb 6, 2019

Landed in 8d2df41.

@danbev danbev closed this Feb 6, 2019
danbev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2019
PR-URL: #25838
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2019
PR-URL: #25838
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
@targos targos mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. build Issues and PRs related to build files or the CI. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants