-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.7k
doc, module: change stability of async customization hooks to experimental #60302
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
Merged
nodejs-github-bot
merged 3 commits into
nodejs:main
from
Flarna:loaderhooks-experimental
Oct 22, 2025
+1
−2
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any stability level 1.x is experimental. See https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/documentation.html#stability-index
We don’t really have a level for “pending removal” so maybe the most appropriate level is the most experimental one:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not early development though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think deprecated would be the state for pending removal but that seems too early to me.
I selected a similar state/wording as for async_hooks (except the migration hints) because it seems very similar:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was decided that "deprecated" was reserved for stable features:
node/doc/api/documentation.md
Lines 48 to 49 in 38bf955
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe just create a new stage like
1.9 - Pending removal? And we can add a note next to it that the sync hooks are the intended replacement.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If neither
1.2 - Release candidatenor1.0 - Early Developmentmakes sense, maybe1.1 - Active development?I feel that whether/when to remove it would be a different question due to the existing usage, but it somewhat certain that even if it stays, it would have to have changes in order to be really functional - there are too many quirks right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that
1.1 - Active developmentis better than 1.2, but I think just making a newPending removalstage would be better still. Worst of all would be going to just1 - Experimental, as that doesn’t provide any guidance. Having a detailed note is good, but there’s tooling built around our docs and so I think it’s better if the most important information (that this is pending removal) is presented in a structured data way that tooling can understand, rather than contained only within a natural English note.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this PR is the right place to change the
Stability indexcontent. This can be done in a separate issue if we think this is needed. There are other places which could benefit from this (async_hooks, trace events, wasi).Additionally I don't want to start the removal discussion as I can't tell if it will ever happen. It's experimental and according to the
Stability indexit can be removed at any time without a deprecation cycle. Not saying that we should do that but that is what is written there.Reading the
Stability indexagain it seems 1.1 fits well. While name of 1.1 includesactivethe detailed text saysExperimental features at this stage are nearing minimum viability.which fits. There is no definition of "active" in the sense of PR count/month,...