Skip to content
New issue

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

Sign up for GitHub

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Add policy to align engines fields with ci #289

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add policy to align engines fields with ci #289

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member

@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon commented Oct 22, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon requested a review from a team October 22, 2024 19:21
@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon self-assigned this Oct 22, 2024
This was referenced Oct 22, 2024
Open
Merged
Merged
@yatiac yatiac mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2024
Closed
@jonchurch jonchurch mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2024
Closed
rxmarbles
rxmarbles reviewed Nov 5, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@rxmarbles rxmarbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ctcpip
Copy link
Member

ctcpip commented Nov 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

we need a note in here about the possibility of continuing to run CI in older unsupported node versions so we know if/when a change clearly breaks back-compat. (we do this for express itself, for example)

I'll try to come up with good wording for this

@bjohansebas bjohansebas added meeting top priority Issues which the TC deem our current highest priorities for the project tc agenda labels Jan 13, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2025
Closed
@UlisesGascon
Copy link
Member Author

ping @ctcpip

wesleytodd
wesleytodd approved these changes Mar 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@wesleytodd wesleytodd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I have general concerns about the decision here, I would much prefer this decision over the current state. The only thing I think is missing is the call-out that all more restrictive engines changes can only land with a MAJOR. And that we agreed major versions should not be cut just to change node support.

This means that this policy will take a while to roll out. I do not consider this blocking to merge this ADR, but I think it is something we had agreed on in a few discussions so just wanted to call it out since I didn't see it mentioned in the text of the ADR.

@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2025
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@rxmarbles rxmarbles rxmarbles left review comments

@wesleytodd wesleytodd wesleytodd approved these changes

@blakeembrey blakeembrey blakeembrey approved these changes

@bjohansebas bjohansebas bjohansebas approved these changes

Assignees

@UlisesGascon UlisesGascon

Labels
ADR meeting tc agenda top priority Issues which the TC deem our current highest priorities for the project
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Discussion: Using engines in the package.json
6 participants
@UlisesGascon @ctcpip @wesleytodd @blakeembrey @rxmarbles @bjohansebas