chore(compat-table): add known compatibility to v4.0.10

[dominikdosoudil]

So I've checked @swc/core, rspack and next.

Apparently none stable @swc/core uses the swc_core@0.101.4.
Not even any canary next uses swc_core@0.101.4.
Rspack added.

Am I right to be rather pessimistic and write down only the versions that use exact =0.101.4? I think that's the only safe way.

Btw, I don't know how often is https://plugins.swc.rs/ updated, but maybe this table might be dropped one day in favour of the list.

[andrii-bodnar]

Btw, I don't know how often is https://plugins.swc.rs/ updated, but maybe this table might be dropped one day in favour of the list.

I was thinking about this as well. We can add this link to the readme somewhere after the compatibility table. It will be useful

[timofei-iatsenko]

I usually just copied whatever written in swc docs, but it seems they replaced it with the new site, so it's not an easy job now.

The problem with this site - it doesn't show our pre-release versions, because it scans only the main branch. So for v5 versions we still need to maintain this form, or change our release process to be supported by this site....

Or just left only swc_core version in the table, so user's using the website could check the compatibility manually by swc_version.

In general, I vote for dropping this table and going with whatever SWC gives us, but we need to add some note there for the users which may come from dozens of links I left in comments / discussions.

[timofei-iatsenko]

Am I right to be rather pessimistic and write down only the versions that use exact =0.101.4? I think that's the only safe way.

They usually wrote that as an open-ended range, and updated it when a version with breaking changes appeared.

[dominikdosoudil]

The problem with this site - it doesn't show our pre-release versions, because it scans only the main branch. So for v5 versions we still need to maintain this form, or change our release process to be supported by this site....

if you check the checkbox, prereleases seems to be included.

Anyway, I’m planning to keep rspack up to date in out project, so I will be able to write down version when it stops working.

[dominikdosoudil]

I’ve suggested where to put the link in new commit but I missclicked while commiting on phone and the commit message got autocorrected 🤦 , let me fix it when I get to laptop.

EDIT: commit message fixed

[timofei-iatsenko]

if you check the checkbox, prereleases seems to be included.

That's awesome. Let's drop the old table the same way as swc docs did and only left a link to the site. I don't want to maintain this table by myself for other runtimes (next, swc/core). Also, notes below the table could be dropped as well.

[pd-be]

Update: looks like the SWC folks have shipped v1.7.28 that uses swc_core@0.106.0 swc-project/swc@6be7166

[dominikdosoudil]

@timofei-iatsenko should I change something in the PR to make it acceptable? If you just wanna deprecate the table by yourself, we can close it.

[timofei-iatsenko]

Yes, i'm going to deprecate the table completely. Thanks for your help, i'll close this one.