You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm more in favour of the version used in the example. Because a date has no value in relation to the runtime. In addition, having the version allows the contributor/collaborator to know if a document needs to be revised.
And from a functional point of view, I think we should add a bit to the MetaBar that allows you to install (redirect to the installation of the correct version).
This is interesting, but would create LTS rollover moments where we have all to review all content. I think that would quickly become the norm, twice a year.
I suppose that's better than arbitrary dates, TBH.
Given that thought experiment, maybe we build on #7294 and build something that asks the owners to review the content twice a year?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm working on TS sub-section. And I had started mark which version how node is covered by the article. But the issue is:
it's not a unique version is a semver range. For example learn/typescript/run talk about node.js customization hooks that supported in >=v20.6.0 || >=v18.19.0.
so the last thing to validate before moving on to the code.
It's about knowing what to put in the MetaBar. There are several solutions:
Download to the correct version (IMO not very interesting)
Link to https://nodejs.org/docs/latest-v${mostRecentInSemver}.x/api/index.html
If we set the mostRecentInSemver variable in the page context, we can have a new mdx component <LinkToApiDocs> which takes api as a props.
Add metadata on pages to display last update (git has this info of course)
@AugustinMauroy had these thoughts
This is interesting, but would create LTS rollover moments where we have all to review all content. I think that would quickly become the norm, twice a year.
I suppose that's better than arbitrary dates, TBH.
Given that thought experiment, maybe we build on #7294 and build something that asks the owners to review the content twice a year?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: