Use Node LTS in Travis

[ggrossetie]

Node.js 6.x is now the "active" LTS: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS#lts-schedule

Plus Travis seems to have trouble building the project with Node 4.1

[benmccann]

The better way to do this might be to reference "lts". See GitbookIO/gitbook-cli#60

[ggrossetie]

I didn't know you could do this... Where did you find it ? The document on Travis doesn't mention it : https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/languages/javascript-with-nodejs/#Specifying-Node.js-versions

[benmccann]

Hmm, seems like they should add that to the docs. I don't remember where I learned about it

[benmccann]

I opened a PR to add it to the npm docs: travis-ci/docs-travis-ci-com#1306

[benmccann]

@AaronO if you're able to merge this PR as well it should fix the Travis build at least. I'm afraid the Appveyor build is harder to fix

[benmccann]

@weitzman @mintbridge @mcveat @ludovicofischer @AaronO would one of you be able to merge this PR to fix the Travis build?

[benmccann]

@weitzman @mintbridge @mcveat @ludovicofischer @AaronO would you be able to merge this to fix Travis?

[ggrossetie]

Unfortunately I'm not a GitBook maintainer... 😞

[benmccann]

@AaronO @jpreynat @SamyPesse @Soreine @zhouzi would you be able to merge this to fix Travis?

[benmccann]

@Mogztter my change was merged to the Travis docs if you want to update this PR to use the latest lts syntax

[ggrossetie]

@benmccann Done 😉

[benmccann]

@Mogztter you did something to mess up this PR. It has hundreds of commits on it now

[ggrossetie]

@benmccann I see only one commit... ?

[benmccann]

After my comment it says "AaronO changed the base branch to GitbookIO:4.x.x from GitbookIO:master 8 hours ago". I'm guessing that fixed it

[AaronO]

@benmccann That's my fault. I moved the old master to 4.x.x and replaced it with the 3.2.x branch, to specifically have bug fixes on the master (fixed an important freeze some users had in a 3.2.3 release).

3.x.x is still the main version used in production, until the new product release is fully rolled out (https://beta.gitbook.com/), so it makes sense to keep that as the master in the meantime.

[benmccann]

@AaronO does that mean we need to have this PR merged to both master and 4.x.x ?

[AaronO]

@benmccann PRs that are focused on fixes should be merged into master first and foremost.

Since this is a "meta" / build related issue it should be merged into both (with master still being the priority)

[benmccann]

@AaronO thanks for the clarification. it sounds like this should be merged then?