Comment by dmix
2 days ago
> Stopping maintaining and testing support for upcoming versions is cheaper than doing that work.
If it’s based on predictions of how some alpha software might turn out in the future then I don’t see how you can claim it’s cheaper.
If a bunch of new bug reports came in then you said no, then everyone would understand.
This is pretty obviously ideological otherwise. Which is fine, but we shouldn’t pretend otherwise because we might agree with it
I don’t thing maintaining and testing support for an extra runtime is free.
It is by definition cheaper to not support extra runtimes like Kaluma, Elsa, WinterJS. Adding support is not just the initial work of adapting CI and writing policies, maintenance and support is ongoing work.
I think it's perfectly rational to take a wait-and-see approach when a dependency has been completely rewritten from scratch.
That would still be rational if it had been rewritten by hand, and not by an LLM.
This isn't a wait and see approach, this is proactively removing it
It's "we support 4 JS backends, we don't have the capacity to support 5 currently". They're not dropping bun entirely, instead bumping the minimum bun version and not supporting "bunv2" because they don't want to be beta testers.
9 replies →
Proactively removing work, yes.