-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
1.3.0 #2135
Comments
Yes, it's getting to be around that time again. 116 commits, and quite a few breaking changes. |
Agreed. Let's do it. |
No 1.2.1? Won't this be a bugfix release? |
Either way. Let's see what the balance of fixes / new features (like strict mode warnings) is. |
There were way too many breaking changes introduced since |
You mean the #2021 stuff? Hmm, I suppose the new reserved words will break a significant amount of code, yes. (Plenty of |
And disallowing duplicate parameters. And disallowing uppercase radix prefixes. And disallowing zero-prefixed number literals. And disallowing octal escape sequences. Pretty much all of it is stuff that will break some script out there. |
Right, I'm just guessing that those things are much rarer than using those reserved words as variable names. Could be wrong. I know you're a fan of duplicate parameters. |
Just realized how big the octal thing is, since every I'd really like to see at least one transitional release that accepts both formats, with a warning about the |
It's so easy to change the octal literals, especially with the helpful error we give:
|
Yep -- I'm not a big fan of transitional releases, especially since you can continue using your "compiled-with-1.2.0-javascript" alongside your "compiled-with-1.3.0-javascript" without having any problems. |
Any issues blocking this? As I know, only package.json & changelog need to be updated. I can submit pullreq for this. |
I want to look through some of the more important open tickets, and document changes ... but yes -- there's nothing major blocking this. If someone works on a pull req and it gets a thorough review from at least @michaelficarra, we could use that for a 1.3.0 |
Last comment was 1 month ago. Is it the right time for a new release or not ? ;-) |
Not exactly. But you're right, a release is needed so badly. edit: whoops, I read "commit". You said "comment". |
@michaelficarra Would you consider that an exhaustive list of what's needed for a 1.3.0? |
Alright -- all closed. |
Certainly. |
Working on the changelog now -- feel free to pop into IRC if you'd like to make sure I don't miss anything. |
Closing. |
Happy to see this. Thanks, Jeremy. On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Michael [email protected] wrote:
|
Fuck yes. Thanks bros! |
Hey coffee bros, I think it's a good time to release 1.3.0.
It has many changes (even breaking, like
use strict
) so if it will be released earlier, compatibility breaking will affect less people.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: