Comment by elisee
11 years ago
As I understand it, the io.js devs think Node.js should have switched to 1.x ("stable") a long time ago. But from their perspective, this is io.js's first release with their own build infrastructure and they made a lot of aggressive changes (updated V8 dependency, etc.), so they're calling their own release beta-quality. Makes sense?
It doesn't make sense to release beta quality software as "v1.0.0" without any reference to being a beta in the version itself. Either use a 0.x version or use a -beta -identifier if the api is fixed but stability is not guaranteed
It does say "Version 1.0.1 (Beta stability)", what more are you requesting?
The "(Beta stability)" is just text on that webpage. The version is just 1.0.1.
By any sane logic any release after 1.x should be considered stable UNLESS otherwise stated.
This is why we have the concepts of things like "dev", "alpha", "beta", "rc" (release candidate) identifiers for versions.
Nowhere does io.js use any of these terms except in that homepage. So now, anyone relying on any other source to get the product either as source or in a binary package has no way to know if it's considered "stable" yet.
So what I want - basic common fucking sense is what I want. Nobody in their right mind would release software marked as version "1.0.0" with full knowledge and even the barest of acknowledgement, that it's only beta quality.
The explanation I've seen so far is that the people behind the fork are sick of NodeJS never reaching 1.0 despite being used in production. Sure thats a good reason to make it 1.0 - because a heap of cool kids have jumped on the bandwagon and bet their business on it, it must be stable right?
Oh wait, but then they admit that it's only beta quality. So they want it to be versioned as if it's appropriate to use it in production, but they know its actually not.