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.

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

Remove boolean fallback for ancient remark #284

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 30, 2022
Merged

Conversation

jablko
Copy link
Contributor

@jablko jablko commented Mar 8, 2022

Initial checklist

  • I read the support docs
  • I read the contributing guide
  • I agree to follow the code of conduct
  • I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)
  • If applicable, I’ve added docs and tests

Description of changes

Should this boolean branch be removed, along with this comment? 4a832b1#diff-fecb2d96324cc527540b9781510b84d13095032247186df5ce672b22171c78dcL51-L52

Since unifiedjs/unified#185 it's untested, as before unifiedjs/unified#150.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically label Mar 8, 2022
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@codecov-commenter

This comment was marked as resolved.

@github-actions github-actions bot added 🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually and removed 👋 phase/new Post is being triaged automatically labels Mar 8, 2022
@wooorm
Copy link
Member

wooorm commented Mar 9, 2022

If we’re going for breaking changes, then sure!

@wooorm wooorm merged commit 0f6bb40 into remarkjs:main Mar 30, 2022
@wooorm
Copy link
Member

wooorm commented Mar 30, 2022

ok, landed, let’s go :)

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@wooorm wooorm added 💪 phase/solved Post is done and removed 🤞 phase/open Post is being triaged manually labels Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
💪 phase/solved Post is done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants