Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Update version to '3.3.3333'.
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@DanielRosenwasser
DanielRosenwasser committed Feb 21, 2019
1 parent 03123fe commit 2c02f13
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion package.json
View file
Expand Up @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"name": "typescript",
"author": "Microsoft Corp.",
"homepage": "https://www.typescriptlang.org/",
"version": "3.3.3",
"version": "3.3.3333",

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@SimonSchick

SimonSchick Feb 21, 2019

Why is that 3333?

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@DanielRosenwasser

DanielRosenwasser Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

Author Member

As opposed to 4?

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@Ionaru

Ionaru Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

Yeah, why not 4?
Next version better be 3.3.3334 or 3.4.0 or you'll confuse npm. 😉

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@DanielRosenwasser

DanielRosenwasser Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

Author Member

I am kidding around, but I've been playful with the version numbers in 3.3.x. You'll notice we skipped from 3.3.1 to 3.3.3. My apologies for any confusion.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@SimonSchick

SimonSchick Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

@DanielRosenwasser I get a little bit sceptical when I see unusual version numbers
as they usually indicate a mistake and/or bug.
Just wanted to double check, thanks for clarifying 😄

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@matthiasbayer

matthiasbayer Feb 22, 2019

Hello to everyone who examined the commits to see if this was a mistake.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@mgcrea

mgcrea Feb 22, 2019

I do also think that it looks like a bug and will probably waste a couple of minutes of work for thousands of developers just to check it. I don't find it particularly funny... No harm done though! Keep up the good work!

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@rainder

rainder Feb 22, 2019

seemed like a bug/mistype/suspicious activity to me as well. Please don't do that again. 😭

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@leonardfactory

leonardfactory Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

You almost killed me. Love to joke, but not when you think typescript just got hacked. 😮
Thanks anyway for clarification! 🎉

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@kachkaev

kachkaev Feb 22, 2019 •
edited

@DanielRosenwasser Please let’s keep version numbers boring in future! 🙏

IMHO TypeScript is too popular for such games with the versions to take place. Thousands of people get distracted across the world and a lot of time gets wasted. It took me 15 minutes to run a mini-investigation after updating the dependencies and here I am in this comment thread. 0.25 hours * 1,000,000 developers = 250,000 hours = 10,416 days = 28,5 years! That's an order of a human life time that’s just been wasted 😭 A million developers and 15 minutes per person are arbitrary numbers of course, but you can substitute them with any estimates you want and will be still stunned with the math 😞

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@leonardfactory

leonardfactory Feb 22, 2019

As a suggestion, I’d like to propose to put a note about this in release notes/changelog, in order to alleviate the issue and make it easier to understand

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@fictitious

fictitious Feb 22, 2019

@kachkaev I disagree that any time was waisted. Teams that are shipping code with dependencies coming from npm should have someone reviewing all updates in all dependencies they use anyway, lest them get pwned.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@DanielRosenwasser

DanielRosenwasser Feb 22, 2019

Author Member

To be honest, @fictitious isn't wrong - after all, why is a more "funny"/suspicious version number more likely to indicate a backdoor than an extremely innocent-looking patch number? Presumably, any malicious actor would want to avoid any sort of suspicion in the first place, so why publish a funny number?

At least, that's my post-rationalization of why this didn't seem like it would be a problem in the first place. In any case, I once again apologize for the confusion.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@chharvey

chharvey Feb 25, 2019 •
edited

I, too, came here to make sure this wasn’t a bug. It took a few minutes out of my day and was a little confusing, but not enough to make me angry. However, it wasn’t necessary. If you want to “kid around,” that’s fine, but you can do it on your own time and on your own projects; not one that’s starred by 45.5K users and downloaded 4.7M times weekly.

Also, since we’re using SemVer, you do realize that every patch from v3.3.3333 onward has to be higher than 3333, right? This means until v3.4 is released, you need to number your patches something like v3.3.4000, v3.3.5000, v3.3.6000, etc. It just adds needless confusion and extra bytes into everyone’s package-lock.json.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@mrhyde

mrhyde Feb 26, 2019 •
edited

Another day, another stupid thing was discovered in typescript. I'm not surprised...

P.S. I think this action was immature, unprofessional and completely disrespectful towards community

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@leonardfactory

leonardfactory Feb 26, 2019

@mrhyde Please, let's take it down a bit. I understand your point of view, and I've found the bump to be misleading, but @DanielRosenwasser is putting his effort keeping up this awesome project. I think a misunderstanding may happen, furthermore Daniel already apologized. Let's go ahead

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@kachkaev

kachkaev Feb 26, 2019 •
edited

I agree with @leonardfactory. Despite that we all wasted a few minutes here, TypeScript as a tool has saved thousands if not more times that!

Respect to all folks who work on TypeScript and especially to @DanielRosenwasser, who does the releases. Let’s not forget that with each new version of TypeScript our work gets more efficient and enjoyable, not to mention that all this is absolutely free.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@pfdgithub

pfdgithub Feb 27, 2019

This joke made me waste a few minutes here, and decided not to upgrade the dependency until the 3.4.0 release.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@gitowiec

gitowiec Feb 27, 2019

I wasted my time here, as I waste my life in front of JavaScript tooling, and this is a laugh of irony into my face. There, lets wait for webpack 666, react 16.lol and tslint TS.LINT! Let's add another bloat to distract!

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@parzh

parzh Feb 27, 2019 •
edited

This is actually funny. I can't see any problems with being a little bit playful with community. @DanielRosenwasser, keep it up 🙌

Should be "3 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions" though:
image
"license": "Apache-2.0",
"description": "TypeScript is a language for application scale JavaScript development",
"keywords": [
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/compiler/core.ts
View file
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ namespace ts {
// If changing the text in this section, be sure to test `configureNightly` too.
export const versionMajorMinor = "3.3";
/** The version of the TypeScript compiler release */
export const version = `${versionMajorMinor}.3`;
export const version = `${versionMajorMinor}.3333`;
}

namespace ts {
Expand Down

3 comments on commit 2c02f13

@rturk
Copy link

@rturk rturk commented on 2c02f13 Feb 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fun with numbers..

@ratbeard
Copy link

@ratbeard ratbeard commented on 2c02f13 Feb 27, 2019 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Give a +🥉 if you're here in 2 0 1 9 and listening to 33 !!

@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey everyone, feedback on this was loud and clear. We won't be shipping any whimsical version numbers in the future, and apologize for the confusion created by this one.

The conversation here seems to be devolving into some back-and-forth, so I'm going to lock this as there's nothing productive left to discuss.

Please sign in to comment.