FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

doc: Revert refine conditions constraints PR by guybedford · Pull Request #35357 · nodejs/node · GitHub

/ node Public

doc: Revert refine conditions constraints PR - #35357

Closed
guybedford wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
guybedford:revert-imports-conditions
ConversationCommits (1)ChecksFiles changed
Closed

doc: Revert refine conditions constraints PR#35357
guybedford wants to merge 1 commit into
nodejs:masterfrom
guybedford:revert-imports-conditions

Conversation

guybedford commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This reverts the PR #35311 which landed before the 7 day limit required for PRs with one approval.

This was a misinterpretation from my side of the previous relaxation of the waiting period, which I thought had also been applied to these cases.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

nodejs-github-bot commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/modules

nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Sep 26, 2020
guybedford mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2020
Closed
3 tasks

Trott commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'd prefer we leave it rather than revert. It's a doc change. If someone doesn't like it, they can change it again....

guybedford commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm happy either way here and apologies for the mix up.

Trott commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm going to optimistically close this, but any other collaborator who feels differently should absolutely feel free to mash the "re-open" button.

Trott closed this Sep 26, 2020

guybedford commented Sep 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

That seems a safe assessment to me. There was modules repo discussion on this topic that led to suggestions for the original PR. There were no complaints raised in that discussion for this approach and I don't know of any arguments against the changes in the PR - it was a fairly uncontroversial one I think.

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Show hidden characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL