Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 22, 2023. It is now read-only.

Revert "url: reslove urls with . and .." #9257

Closed

Conversation

misterdjules
Copy link

This reverts commit ad06848.

Initially, this bug fix targeted master, and I pushed to have it
included in v0.10. In retrospect, I'm not sure it should have made into
v0.10 as it seems it could break a lot of existing working code.

In my opinion, this change is still a bug fix, and it is not backward
incompatible per se. However, I'm not sure that taking the risk to break
a lot of users with a new 0.10.x release that would include this fix is
reasonable, especially now that 0.10.x releases are entering
maintenance mode.

This reverts commit ad06848.

Initially, this bug fix targeted master, and I pushed to have it
included in v0.10. In retrospect, I'm not sure it should have made into
v0.10 as it seems it could break a lot of existing working code.

In my opinion, this change is still a bug fix, and it is not backward
incompatible per se. However, I'm not sure that taking the risk to break
a lot of users with a new 0.10.x release that would include this fix is
reasonable, especially now that 0.10.x releases are entering
maintenance mode.
@misterdjules
Copy link
Author

@trevnorris I apologize for the confusion, I should have put more thoughts into that before pushing to land it in v0.10.

@trevnorris @tjfontaine @orangemocha @cjihrig What do you think?

The follow-up question is: do we want to release 0.12.1 with this fix too? I still haven't made up my mind about this, although I would rather err on the side of caution.

@trevnorris
Copy link

Alright on reverting the v0.10 patch, though I think landing it in v0.12.1 would be alright.

@cjihrig
Copy link

cjihrig commented Feb 22, 2015

+1 on what @trevnorris said.

@misterdjules
Copy link
Author

@trevnorris @cjihrig I agree that it would break less users, but technically since it hasn't been included in the v0.12.0 release, this would still be a behavior change that would break users.

I think that if we want to be consistent we would unfortunately need to revert it from v0.12 too and land it in master.

misterdjules pushed a commit to misterdjules/node that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2015
This reverts commit ad06848.

Initially, this bug fix targeted master, and I pushed to have it
included in v0.10. In retrospect, I'm not sure it should have made into
v0.10 as it seems it could break a lot of existing working code.

In my opinion, this change is still a bug fix, and it is not backward
incompatible per se. However, I'm not sure that taking the risk to break
a lot of users with a new 0.10.x release that would include this fix is
reasonable, especially now that 0.10.x releases are entering
maintenance mode.

PR-URL: nodejs#9257
Reviewed-by: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
misterdjules pushed a commit to misterdjules/node that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2015
This reverts commit ad06848.

Initially, this bug fix targeted master, and I pushed to have it
included in v0.10. In retrospect, I'm not sure it should have made into
v0.10 as it seems it could break a lot of existing working code.

In my opinion, this change is still a bug fix, and it is not backward
incompatible per se. However, I'm not sure that taking the risk to break
a lot of users with a new 0.10.x release that would include this fix is
reasonable, especially now that 0.10.x releases are entering
maintenance mode.

PR-URL: nodejs#9257
Reviewed-by: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@misterdjules
Copy link
Author

Thank you, landed in a5be84f!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants