Skip to content

Preparation for Node.js 12  #417

Closed
Closed

Description

@BethGriggs

Issue for tracking the progress of Node 12. The current checklist is based on @jasnell's guide for major releases - nodejs/node#25497.

  • Cut branches v12.x, v12.x-staging and keep in sync with master
  • Create v12.x-proposal branch that tracks v12.x - ETA February 23rd 2019
  • Create test builds from v12.x-proposal - ETA March 12th 2019
  • Start cherry-picking commits manually - ETA March 23rd 2019
  • Start creating RCs from v12.x-proposal - 1 per week from March 23rd 2019
  • Release - ETA April 23rd 2019

SemVer-Major cutoff - March 23rd 2019

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Feb 18, 2019
  2. mhdawson commented on Feb 20, 2019

    @mhdawson
    Member

    We should probably add a step for adding the release to the data captured on benchmarking.nodejs.org

  3. BethGriggs commented on Mar 11, 2019

    @BethGriggs
    MemberAuthor
  4. vsemozhetbyt commented on Mar 11, 2019

    @vsemozhetbyt

    Sorry, if this is a wrong place to ask.

    We remove experimental warnings for fs and dns promisified API (see nodejs/node#26581 and nodejs/node#26592). Is it worth to also remove such warnings for readable[Symbol.asyncIterator]() and rl[Symbol.asyncIterator]()?

  5. rvagg commented on Mar 12, 2019

    @rvagg
    Member

    it's critical that @nodejs/build comes up with a final "support platforms" list as well as the base platforms for compiling releases, I don't believe we have this written up in a single place but there are some major changes that we need to lock in

  6. richardlau commented on Mar 12, 2019

    @richardlau
    Member

    it's critical that @nodejs/build comes up with a final "support platforms" list as well as the base platforms for compiling releases, I don't believe we have this written up in a single place but there are some major changes that we need to lock in

    That really sounds like something that should be on the agenda for the Build WG meetings (next one being later today: nodejs/build#1715).

  7. rvagg commented on Mar 12, 2019

    @rvagg
    Member

    Assuming we need to bump NODE_MODULE_VERSION, we have to make sure we don't just straight increment, we have Electron making a claim on the next two numbers (69 and 70) so we just bump past that. See nodejs/TSC#651 (comment) and the current "registry" (WIP) @ nodejs/node#24114

  8. Trott commented on Mar 25, 2019

    @Trott
    Member

    @BethGriggs Is the tsc-agenda label here for visibility (that is, to make sure the TSC knows about this issue) or is there something the TSC needs to actually do or decide here?

  9. BethGriggs commented on Mar 25, 2019

    @BethGriggs
    MemberAuthor

    @Trott, yes, it was just for awareness

  10. Trott commented on Mar 28, 2019

    @Trott
    Member

    Mentioned at the TSC meeting today. Removing the tsc-agenda label. Feel free to re-add it if there's more for the TSC to do.

  11. rvagg commented on Apr 16, 2019

    @rvagg
    Member

    Working through an infrastructure checklist @ nodejs/build#1768, it's not very healthy this close to release unfortunately.

  12. BethGriggs commented on Apr 22, 2019

    @BethGriggs
    MemberAuthor

    Do the symlinks for https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-vN.x/ get created automatically? Or is that something @nodejs/build typically handles?

  13. jasnell commented on Apr 22, 2019

    @jasnell
    Member

    That happens automatically

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions