Skip to content

What's on version 3.3.3333? #30032

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
dashmug opened this issue Feb 21, 2019 · 22 comments
Closed

What's on version 3.3.3333? #30032

dashmug opened this issue Feb 21, 2019 · 22 comments
Labels
Working as Intended The behavior described is the intended behavior; this is not a bug

Comments

@dashmug
Copy link

dashmug commented Feb 21, 2019

My apologies if this is not the right issue type. I just think that needs urgent attention as it could mean npm is compromised (which is not unheard of).

I got this from my project.

screen shot 2019-02-22 at 10 53 14 am

Surprised, I went to the npm page for typescript and got this.

screen shot 2019-02-22 at 10 52 25 am

Is this expected?

@tkausl
Copy link

tkausl commented Feb 22, 2019

2c02f13

@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

We published 3.3.3333 because, unfortunately, npm rejected our PR to allow versions with an infinite number of repeating digits.

@dashmug
Copy link
Author

dashmug commented Feb 22, 2019

Thank you for the response. It is expected then. I'll close this.

@dashmug dashmug closed this as completed Feb 22, 2019
@fictitious
Copy link

@RyanCavanaugh you'd have better chances with npm if you went with PR allowing such versions to be published on GitHub first

@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

We had an offline conversation, but couldn't come to an agreement about whether 4.9999... should be equivalent to 5.0 or not.

@jacobwgillespie
Copy link

jacobwgillespie commented Feb 22, 2019

Sorry if I'm just missing a joke here, but I'm probably not the only one still confused. 🙃

Given that automated tools like Greenkeeper/Dependabot etc are now recommending upgrading from 3.3.3 to 3.3.3333, is this new version legit? We're trying to audit this from a security perspective, and this kind of release is unusual behavior for semver, etc. Also I think this version probably blocks any automated upgrades to 3.3.4 since 4 is less than 3333.

Besides this issue, I can't find anything relating to what this is or why it was published, and there are actual code changes in the diff between the the 3.3.3 and 3.3.3333 versions.

@DanielRosenwasser
Copy link
Member

Sorry, humor aside, the new version is legit.

@DanielRosenwasser DanielRosenwasser added the Working as Intended The behavior described is the intended behavior; this is not a bug label Feb 22, 2019
@jacobwgillespie
Copy link

Does that mean there will be no version >=3.3.4 <3.3.3333?

@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

Correct. Any future version on the 3.3 line will be something like 3.3.4000

@weswigham
Copy link
Member

Or more likely 3.3.33333 given what we've already done tbh.

@Jessidhia
Copy link

Missed an opportunity to have 3.1.4159 🤔

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 22, 2019

🤔

@alexeagle
Copy link
Contributor

I know you guys don't believe in semver but now you have to introduce floating point errors into it? I feel like this change is just 1/3 whimsical.

@zaoqi
Copy link

zaoqi commented Feb 23, 2019

@qiaodaima

thinking

讓我想起了Microsoft Windows版本號,雖然我現在不用Microsoft Windows,也不用wine,同時也在試圖刪除GNU和Linux和BSD(指我可能將實現一個運行於ARM,Intel芯片之上的整個內核作為一個我設計的編程語言解釋器所以不一定需要MMU的內核及操作系統)。

@chase-moskal
Copy link

chase-moskal commented Feb 24, 2019

@Jessidhia

Missed an opportunity to have 3.1.4159

we can still have hope for typescript@3.14.1592

@we11adam
Copy link

we11adam commented Mar 1, 2019

This version number is in no way a joke I can appreciate because I literally spent a few minutes reading this issue and 2c02f13 trying to figure it out only to find out it's really meaningless.

Can we stop this from happening again, please? Thanks! @DanielRosenwasser

@TheReincarnator
Copy link

Not very professional, misleading, irritating. And not consistent in terms of semver. This is why people outside the JS/TS community are taking it not serious.

@jkoepcke
Copy link

I would really like to know how many developer hours have been wasted worldwide investigating about this version number... with great power comes great responsibility :)

@KissBalazs
Copy link

Nice to see that other professionals still use their highschool homework versioning systems as well.

@sysmat
Copy link

sysmat commented Mar 14, 2019

Probably in semantic versioning is legit, but it is strange

@forresthopkinsa
Copy link

So many complainers. I came across this issue because I saw the joke in my NPM logs and I wanted to know where to direct my appreciation. Made me chuckle. We don't need to be so serious all the time.

@parzh
Copy link

parzh commented Dec 2, 2019

@forresthopkinsa Well, if their tools are now broken because of this change, you can't blame them for giving a shout about that.

On the other hand though, I couldn't think about anything that would seriously break after this kind of change.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
Working as Intended The behavior described is the intended behavior; this is not a bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests