-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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.
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
Audit commits not found on v4.x-staging #4698
Comments
|
#2778 is an interesting case, it has I think also it might be best to compare to |
@iarna @Fishrock123 and @nodejs/v8: I've made a new |
@iarna @Fishrock123 and @nodejs/v8: sorry, I meant to ask if you could please try and remember to tag new PRs with this label when we know they shouldn't touch v4.x. |
I've updated the list above filtering for dont-land-on-v4.x as well |
OK, I've done a heap of tagging and a bit of merging, if you grab the latest
|
After having been delayed working on this by dealing with several fires this week, I'm hoping to be able to return attention to this later on today. @thealphanerd and @rvagg ... thank you both very much for continuing to press forward on it. I'm resetting my goal to have the 4.2.5 release proposal ready to go by end of the day Monday. |
@rvagg thanks for going through this! Regarding linting changes, we have been backporting them for now. I imagine the number of rules being added are going to be minimal. The churn though will not. Keeping up with these changes will make future backporting substantially easier |
I cherry-picked the eslint update commits and fixed the merge conflicts: #4721 |
This is a one-line change that was subsequently undone by d9734b7 (which fixed the test so it wasn't flaky anymore). I'd recommend cherry-picking them both (so that everything lands cleanly) and landing. In fact, here's a PR that does exactly that: #4730 UPDATE: Er, actually, these are superseded by a third commit that's already in v4.x-staging. Cherry-picking both of these commits results in no change. So, no need to land them, I guess. |
This one cherry-picks cleanly to v4.x-staging. Here's a PR for good measure: #4732 |
Yup. If it's at all helpful, PR: #4734 I think that's the end of the stuff on the list that I was involved with. If there's something else I should look at, let me know. |
@thealphanerd Is this issue still an active concern? |
Closing in lieu of a new thread to be opened soon |
I just did a run of branch diff and will put the results in a comment below. It appears there are 68 patch level commits that have landed on master that are not currently under LTS watch
We should likely audit these commits to see if we want to add them. I also think it would be a good idea for us to implement a new label to filter these results out in future audits. dont-land-on-v4.x?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: