Updated nodejs versions #7

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 21, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
Contributor

GrahamCampbell commented Jul 20, 2014

No description provided.

GrahamCampbell referenced this pull request in travis-ci/travis-cookbooks Jul 20, 2014

Merged

nodejs 0.10.29 #344

Owner

joshk commented Jul 20, 2014

should we remove 0.8.26?

Contributor

GrahamCampbell commented Jul 20, 2014

D'no. I'm not a heavy nodejs user. I've not been following the changes.

Owner

joshk commented Jul 20, 2014

lets remove 0.8.26 and add a note to the blog post about it.

Owner

BanzaiMan commented Jul 20, 2014

Can we postpone abandoning 0.8.x for the next update? Otherwise we'll have to create a new one and test it again. I can add the advance notice of 0.8.x abandonment for the blog post.

Owner

joshk commented Jul 20, 2014

abandoning 0.8.x?

I am just saying we should upgrade 0.8.x

Owner

BanzaiMan commented Jul 20, 2014

Ugh. Sorry about that. Either way, I prefer that this update be a part of the next VM update.

Owner

joshk commented Jul 20, 2014

I know I'm being a pain at the last minute, but I think we can slip it in as it is only a point release.

If you prefer, you can leave 0.8.26 in there too, in case anything bad happens.

@BanzaiMan BanzaiMan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 21, 2014

@BanzaiMan BanzaiMan Merge pull request #7 from GrahamCampbell/patch-1
Updated nodejs versions
ea8c26e

@BanzaiMan BanzaiMan merged commit ea8c26e into travis-ci:master Jul 21, 2014

GrahamCampbell deleted the unknown repository branch Jul 21, 2014

Owner

BanzaiMan commented Jul 21, 2014

After booting this, we get:

travis@debug-update-node-js-1405977155:~$ nvm list
        .nvm
     v0.6.21
     v0.8.23
     v0.8.25
     v0.8.27
    v0.10.18
    v0.10.28
->  v0.10.29
    v0.11.13
0.1 -> v0.10.29
0.10 -> v0.10.28
0.6 -> v0.6.21
0.8 -> v0.8.27
default -> v0.10.29
node-unstable -> v0.11.13
travis@debug-update-node-js-1405977155:~$ nvm use 0.10
Now using node v0.10.28

which is probably not expected. Is this a problem?

Owner

joshk commented Jul 21, 2014

Ahhh, yes, I have seen this before, it seems to be because of:

0.10 -> v0.10.28

I wonder if it is a small fix

On 21 July 2014 at 2:22:10 pm, Hiro Asari (notifications@github.com) wrote:

After booting this, we get:

travis@debug-update-node-js-1405977155:$ nvm list
.nvm
v0.6.21
v0.8.23
v0.8.25
v0.8.27
v0.10.18
v0.10.28
-> v0.10.29
v0.11.13
0.1 -> v0.10.29
0.10 -> v0.10.28
0.6 -> v0.6.21
0.8 -> v0.8.27
default -> v0.10.29
node-unstable -> v0.11.13
travis@debug-update-node-js-1405977155:
$ nvm use 0.10
Now using node v0.10.28
which is probably not expected. Is this a problem?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Owner

BanzaiMan commented Jul 22, 2014

@joshk Does that mean this is a problem, or not? Do we need a new Node.js image?

Owner

joshk commented Jul 22, 2014

I think this is an issue with NVM.

@ljharb it looks like NVM ignores creating an alias when one exists

ljharb commented Jul 22, 2014

This seems by design - why would you create an alias of 0.10 pointing to 0.10.28? That's what nvm already does for you. (Same with 0.6 and 0.8 - 0.1 seems like it's just preventing people from finding errors in their travis.yml files)

Owner

joshk commented Jul 22, 2014

it would be nice not to have to remove an alias just to create a new similar one, eg. overwriting an alias should be possible.

ljharb commented Jul 22, 2014

I'm pretty sure nvm alias already overwrites - nvm use has never created aliases in the first place. (I'm not sure why those particular aliases would exist anywhere to begin with, since nvm use 0.10 will always resolve to the latest 0.10.x version nvm has installed)

Owner

joshk commented Jul 22, 2014

Ahhhhh. We are doing the alias creating, it was either due to a misunderstanding on how to use nvm, or an issue we had in the early days.

We can remove the alias creating then! ( @BanzaiMan this would mean a new standard image might be needed before creating the new node image )

ljharb commented Jul 22, 2014

Sounds good :-) please update to the latest nvm while you're at it ;-)

Owner

joshk commented Jul 22, 2014

Oh, good point, I don't know if we have copied over the latest version. Could you send us a PR for that?

Owner

BanzaiMan commented Jul 22, 2014

Hmmm. Do we have to push back updates to next week?

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