| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
|
@targos build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/273/pipeline |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I would prefer if this is a @nodejs/tsc decision. Should we put it in the agenda for next week? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sure. Added the label. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Node.js 10 has had the change for almost twice as long as it didn’t have it, and we’ve done security releases since then (i.e. we expect people to use versions that have it)… not knowing much about the subject matter, I’m not sure reverting is ideal?i |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
From different point of view - since 10.2.0 it was an undocumented API change, it became part of the documentation in version 10.6.0 just 10 days ago... How about projects relying on the previous documented version added in 0.6.7 released in January 2012? I think the number of them will be slighly bigger;) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Note from TSC meeting: we also need to revert the documentation change. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
From the discussion in the TSC meeting I'm +1 to reverting. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
This is the documentation change #21047. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Was there a resolution in the TSC meeting? Should the tsc-agenda label be removed? Or is it slated for next week's meeting too? /cc @targos |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@Trott we did not have quorum. The proposed path is to revert this in Node 10, but leave it in in master. This approach would need necessarily 2 TSC signoffs because it's a retroactive semver-major change that should not have landed in master without 2 TSC signoffs. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Doc change reverted |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/15944/ Is this going to break end-of-stream again? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@targos I do not think so. What broke eos was 8029a24. cc @mafintosh to confirm before landing. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
eos is fine with this. LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI is green. This needs at least one more @nodejs/tsc signoff. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rubber stamp LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@nodejs/release @nodejs/lts I think this is ready to land. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm going to add this to the release proposal at #22040 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
It's probably worth a sentence in the notable changes. Could someone help me write it? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Since this is already released, reverting it would just make a bad situation worse. SEMVER was already broken once with the initial release, reverting it would just break it again. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I've added this back to the TSC agenda to discuss in today's meeting. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 reverting is the right move. This is something we should fix before LTS
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel the conflict here is which of the following we want to make migration from easier:
Since v10.x is an LTS version, but we haven't reached LTS stage, there's still a lot of life remaining in v10.x as folks try to update to v10.x from versions older than v10.x.
It's a sucky situation, but I'm on the side of 👍 on this PR as well.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This reverts a commit that accidentally introduced a semver-major change to Node 10 and broke userland code. A subsequent fix to that change and documentation change are reverted with it. Revert "http: fix res emit close before user finish" This reverts commit 2a9c833. Revert "http: always emit close on req and res" This reverts commit 8029a24. Revert "doc: fix HTTP req/res 'close' description" This reverts commit 8ab7ea6. PR-URL: #21809 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <apapirovski@mac.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
This also reverts 2a9c833 which modifies the added file and line.
Refs: #20611 (comment)
/cc @nodejs/tsc
The change landed in v10.2.0. I suppose there is a risk to break code that is now relying on it?
Checklist