src: add process.release.lts property & LTS CODENAME VOTING #3212

rvagg · 2015-10-06T12:54:55Z

Looking for review of this against v4.x, and separately calling for votes from @nodejs/collaborators on what the codename for our first LTS line (v4.x) will be. We are aiming for v4.2.0 LTS to be released this Thursday so this has to be quick!

Adopting a codename for LTS releases is part of the original LTS plan and although we've had a couple of late-breaking objections to even having a codename we're going ahead with it anyway given that this has been baked into the LTS plan that has already been adopted. We'll give it a go for this first one and assess for v6 if we go ahead and do it again.

The objectives are something like this:

Something fun
Something to set the LTS releases apart from the standard releases, both technically (a process.release.lts property) and for non-code communication purposes. We have an additional burden of having to start an LTS at an arbitrary point of a semver-major + semver-minor, i.e. 4.2.0 in this case, being able to call it something from that point on sets it apart
Foster a shared culture around LTS as more than just another release line, having input on what the codename should be from the broader group also helps with a sense of shared ownership (also, fun again, imagine how boring Ubuntu would be without the fun names? It'd be as boring as Fedora has become)

The plan was for the @nodejs/lts group to come up with a short-list and call for voting. We've decided to go with the periodic-table for inspiration, there's a nice connection between the elements and the elemental nature of what we are trying to do with Node (i.e. small-core), also, there's lots to choose from! We also agreed that using alphabetic ordering will be helpful in deciphering order without needing additional context if people choose to refer to a line by its codename. These are what are available:

Actinium Ac
Aluminum Al
Americium Am
Antimony Sb
Argon Ar
Arsenic As
Astatine At

For various reasons we've had to trim that list right down and only have two candidates for the v4 LTS codename:

Actinium

Actinium is a silvery radioactive metallic element. Actinium glows in the dark due to its intense radioactivity with a blue light. Actinium was discovered in 1899 by André-Louis Debierne, a French chemist, who separated it from pitchblende. Friedrich Otto Giesel independently discovered actinium in 1902. The chemical behavior of actinium is similar to that of the rare earth lanthanum. The word actinium comes from the Greek aktis, aktinos, meaning beam or ray. Also, Actinium happens to have 4 isotopes, which is nice for our v4 release.

Argon

Argon was suspected to be present in air by Henry Cavendish in 1785 but wasn't discovered until 1894 by Lord Rayleigh and Sir William Ramsay. Argon is the third noble gas, in period 8, and it makes up about 1% of the Earth's atmosphere. Argon has approximately the same solubility as oxygen and it is 2.5 times as soluble in water as nitrogen . This chemically inert element is colorless and odorless in both its liquid and gaseous forms. It is not found in any compounds. This gas is isolated through liquid air fractionation since the atmosphere contains only 0.94% argon. The Martian atmosphere in contrast contains 1.6% of Ar-40 and 5 ppm Ar-36. World production exceeds 750.000 tonnes per year, the supply is virtually inexhaustible.

(Astatine might also have been in the running except for the slightly awkward pronunciation and this gem: "total world production of astatine to date is estimated to be less than a millionth of a gram, and virtually all of this has now decayed away.")

So, this vote is open to @nodejs/collaborators only, you get one vote each, just leave a comment with your choice below.

Also looking for reviews of the changes this introduces (assuming the codename will be inserted to the appropriate places when chosen).

cjihrig · 2015-10-06T12:58:07Z

Changes LGTM, once the real value is in there. My vote is for Argon because it's shorter, and easier to remember and say.

evanlucas · 2015-10-06T13:07:36Z

+1 to Argon

Trott · 2015-10-06T13:10:15Z

Another vote for Argon
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:07 AM Evan Lucas [email protected] wrote:

+1 to Argon

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3212 (comment).

mhdawson · 2015-10-06T13:11:45Z

Changes lgtm once real value is there.

+1 to Argon

thefourtheye · 2015-10-06T13:16:44Z

src/node.cc

@@ -2736,6 +2736,9 @@ void SetupProcessObject(Environment* env,
  Local<Object> release = Object::New(env->isolate());
  READONLY_PROPERTY(process, "release", release);
  READONLY_PROPERTY(release, "name", OneByteString(env->isolate(), "node"));
+  READONLY_PROPERTY(release,


How does this make sure that lts is defined only for LTS releases?

this PR is against v4.x, that's how; I'm open to suggestions on doc changes that could go in to master if any

aheckmann · 2015-10-06T13:27:40Z

+1 Argon

targos · 2015-10-06T13:40:36Z

+1 for Argon, though I would have preferred if we picked the elements in the natural order and start with Hydrogen.

thefourtheye · 2015-10-06T13:44:21Z

LGTM + Argon

jasnell · 2015-10-06T14:40:54Z

+1 for Argon. Patch LGTM.

bnoordhuis · 2015-10-06T20:37:44Z

Can we make process.release.lts a number or number-as-string? Makes lexicographic comparison easy:

if (process.release.lts < 201709) {  // do this one thing
if (process.release.lts > 201510) {  // do this other thing

ChALkeR · 2015-10-06T21:02:58Z

@rvagg What will the 10th LTS release be called?

trevnorris · 2015-10-06T21:05:52Z

+1 to Ben's suggestion.

Fishrock123 · 2015-10-06T22:11:04Z

(we already bikeshedded that in the meeting)

Let's just do { name: 'Argon', date: 201510 }

Trott · 2015-10-07T01:30:15Z

rvagg · 2015-10-07T02:08:16Z

@nodejs/lts opinions on @Fishrock123's suggestion above, my recollection is that we ended at the date not being all that helpful given that we already have process.version to tell us what version its running on. I'm -0 on making it a complex object.

I guess we could review the hangout video ... someone have the patience for that?

Fishrock123 · 2015-10-07T03:41:13Z

Let's just do { name: 'Argon', date: 201510 }

@nodejs/lts opinions on @Fishrock123's suggestion above, my recollection is that we ended at the date not being all that helpful given that we already have process.version to tell us what version its running on. I'm -0 on making it a complex object.

Actually, same. Going back to @zkat and @issacs's points, this is what the semver version is for. We only have an lts bit in to tell that it is actually an lts release and whether or not we make it a string, it might as well be a boolean.

Fishrock123 · 2015-10-07T03:46:21Z

Also, interesting thought: I guess this means we always have to bump a minor when going into an LTS phase?

jbergstroem · 2015-10-07T04:38:55Z

Whatever name, just get @bnoordhuis's date parsing in there +1.

Fishrock123 · 2015-10-07T04:40:45Z

Whatever name, just get @bnoordhuis's date parsing in there +1.

As we bikeshedded in the LTS meeting, that's not actually useful. Just use the semver version instead (+ a check if it is an lts at all).

jbergstroem · 2015-10-07T05:06:09Z

@Fishrock123 haven't caught up on the bikeshedding just yet. Thanks for pointing me there though.

Fishrock123 · 2015-10-09T02:36:49Z

Also, fwiw, +1 Argon (my suggestion)(am I allowed to vote for my own?)

rvagg · 2015-10-12T12:19:10Z

Updated PR to use Argon and use node_version.h macros as per @jasnell's proposal.

Also added in more strict testing so that it'll enforce no process.release.lts unless ~4.2.0 in which case it must be Argon.

PR-URL: nodejs#3212

jasnell · 2015-10-12T13:44:48Z

LGTM. There are a few bits I'll fix up when it lands (i.e. "WHAT WILL THIS BE?" is the doc change)

Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> PR-URL: #3212

jasnell · 2015-10-12T13:50:07Z

Landed in 42b936e

The first Node.js LTS release! See https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/ for details of the LTS process. * **icu**: Updated to version 56 with significant performance improvements (Steven R. Loomis) #3281 * **node**: - Added new `-c` (or `--check`) command line argument for checking script syntax without executing the code (Dave Eddy) #2411 - Added `process.versions.icu` to hold the current ICU library version (Evan Lucas) #3102 - Added `process.release.lts` to hold the current LTS codename when the binary is from an active LTS release line (Rod Vagg) #3212 * **npm**: Upgraded to npm 2.14.7 from 2.14.4, see release notes: https://github.com/npm/npm/releases/tag/v2.14.7 for full details (Kat Marchán) #3299 PR-URL: #3258

This makes the process.release.lts property configurable by a constant. This ref is the original PR to v6.x. Refs: nodejs#3212 Conflicts: doc/api/process.md PR-URL: nodejs#16656 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]>

rvagg added the semver-minor PRs that contain new features and should be released in the next minor version. label Oct 6, 2015

rvagg mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2015

LTS Meeting 2015-10-05 nodejs/Release#43

Closed

rvagg force-pushed the process.release.lts branch from 996f713 to e8b9db9 Compare October 6, 2015 13:05

thefourtheye reviewed Oct 6, 2015
View reviewed changes

mscdex added the process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. label Oct 6, 2015

Fishrock123 mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2015

First LTS Release 'codename' nodejs/Release#26

Closed

rvagg mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2015

Discussion: LTS & v5 release planning #3000

Closed

8 tasks

Fishrock123 mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2015

Release proposal: v4.2.0 'Argon' (LTS) #3258

Closed

rvagg force-pushed the process.release.lts branch from e8b9db9 to 5570327 Compare October 12, 2015 12:15

rvagg force-pushed the process.release.lts branch from 5570327 to ce625c7 Compare October 12, 2015 12:19

src: add process.release.lts property

ce625c7

PR-URL: nodejs#3212

rvagg added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2015

src: add process.release.lts property

42b936e

Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> PR-URL: #3212

jasnell closed this Oct 12, 2015

rvagg deleted the process.release.lts branch October 13, 2015 00:24

richardlau mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2018

Node.js 10.0.0 Tracking nodejs/Release#291

Closed

snyk-io bot mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2024

[Snyk] Security upgrade semantic-release from 20.1.3 to 23.0.4 Graysonbarton/node#125

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

src: add process.release.lts property & LTS CODENAME VOTING #3212

src: add process.release.lts property & LTS CODENAME VOTING #3212

rvagg commented Oct 6, 2015

cjihrig commented Oct 6, 2015

evanlucas commented Oct 6, 2015

Trott commented Oct 6, 2015

mhdawson commented Oct 6, 2015

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2015

rvagg Oct 6, 2015

aheckmann commented Oct 6, 2015

targos commented Oct 6, 2015

thefourtheye commented Oct 6, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2015

bnoordhuis commented Oct 6, 2015

ChALkeR commented Oct 6, 2015

trevnorris commented Oct 6, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2015

Trott commented Oct 7, 2015

rvagg commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

jbergstroem commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

jbergstroem commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 9, 2015

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 12, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 12, 2015

src: add process.release.lts property & LTS CODENAME VOTING #3212

src: add process.release.lts property & LTS CODENAME VOTING #3212

Conversation

rvagg commented Oct 6, 2015

Actinium

Argon

cjihrig commented Oct 6, 2015

evanlucas commented Oct 6, 2015

Trott commented Oct 6, 2015

mhdawson commented Oct 6, 2015

thefourtheye Oct 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rvagg Oct 6, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aheckmann commented Oct 6, 2015

targos commented Oct 6, 2015

thefourtheye commented Oct 6, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2015

bnoordhuis commented Oct 6, 2015

ChALkeR commented Oct 6, 2015

trevnorris commented Oct 6, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2015

Trott commented Oct 7, 2015

rvagg commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

jbergstroem commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 7, 2015

jbergstroem commented Oct 7, 2015

Fishrock123 commented Oct 9, 2015

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 12, 2015

jasnell commented Oct 12, 2015