Bring N-API out of experimental #501
Comments
|
+1. Thanks for all of the hard work on N-API. |
|
+1 |
|
I support this. |
|
+1 |
|
If there's no objections, moving N-API out of experimental doesn't need a TSC vote, right? |
@fhinkel Looking at our documented process in GOVERNANCE.md, we can skip a vote if we:
I think this should be removed from the meeting agenda, although by our rules, only @mhdawson can do that because they put it on the agenda in the first place. Michael or someone else can mention it during announcements if they want to raise awareness at the meeting. But it sure looks like this is going to sit here for 72 hours (because I think the clock starts when @nodejs/tsc is @-mentioned), and then be affirmed without a vote. |
|
@Trott thanks for explaining. Definitely didn't want to rush it, just making sure we don't skip a vote if needed. |
71 hours and 35 minutes to go! 😄 |
|
I'm happy to remove from the agenda. I just wanted to make sure we had some visibility/comments and I think that is occurring. |
|
As part of this process we should make sure that the real-world usage is captured in citgm. It's important we verify that we are not regressing things. |
|
Testing for N-API itself is part of the regular regression runs. For modules we should be testing both:
https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-napi-modules-citgm/ (just recently yellow, investigating), but it does not have all of the modules covered. So its a good idea to try to add the modules listed above to the regular CiTGM. I've opened an issue in the abi-stable-node repo to pursue that. -> nodejs/node-addon-api#234 |
|
Side note, we should put "add at least an ecosystem module that use X feature when it exists experimental to citgm". |
|
PR to remove experimental status nodejs/node#19262 |
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 PR-URL: #19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
|
PR landed ! |
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 PR-URL: nodejs#19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 Backport-PR-URL: #19447 PR-URL: #19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 Backport-PR-URL: #21083 PR-URL: #19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 Backport-PR-URL: #21083 PR-URL: #19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 Backport-PR-URL: #21083 PR-URL: #19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Take n-api out of experimental as per: nodejs/TSC#501 PR-URL: nodejs/node#19262 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
The criteria for bringing N-API out of experimental were discussed in the VM Summit last July and captured here: nodejs/abi-stable-node#284.
The items where:
alternative to NAN.
We have worked through the process of how N-API will integrate with node-pre-gyp and
have a pull request here to integrate the required changed #345
We did not have to make any changes to the APIs to support working with node-pre-gyp and
don't believe any future changes will be required either. As such the N-API team does not believe
waiting until the PR lands is necessary to move N-API out of experimental.
We have not had to make any breaking changes to the APIs since the last ones which were originally planned for Node 8.6.x back in September 2017.
Along the way we have had comments from a number of modules owners that they will be more interested in moving to N-API once it comes out of experimental.
At this point in time, the N-API team believes it has met the substance of the criteria originally set out and the recommendation of the N-API team is to move it out of experimental as we believe that we will not get a material amount of additional validation while it remains in experimental. This is because modules owners are reluctant to invest while it is in that state.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: