Mothballing and archiving the node-eps process #335
Comments
|
SGTM |
1 similar comment
|
SGTM |
|
SGTM
…On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Matteo Collina ***@***.***> wrote:
SGTM
—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#335 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVzDWhPzV_PV2y1-GwmBXI9-nHnF1ks5sf5nqgaJpZM4PPEFe>
.
|
|
SGTM |
|
I wish we had an alternative but seeing how little love it has received SGTM for now. |
|
@nodejs/tsc ... we need more tsc members to weigh in. |
|
One more SGTM for the collection. |
|
SGTM |
|
I like that idea |
No one objected. 5 members besides you gave it the thumbs up. It was open for 5 days and TSC was @-notified immediately when the issue was opened. That's consensus. Someone who hasn't spoken up by now can be considered a "no objection" and/or "no opinion". (And now you have three more approvals! Four more if you include Joyee's thumbs up reaction.) |
|
Indeed, I'm happy to call it in favor of the proposal. It would just be helpful if all 22 TSC members would generally be more proactive about weighing in on such issues. As it is, assuming we're moving forward with this, I will open a PR against the nodejs/node-eps repo updating the README to say that it is archived and will open an issue there communicating the same. |
|
Closing as the issue appears to be resolved. |
|
... I am not for this. I think it is useful and it should be used more. |
|
I thought I had commented on this already. Here's post-closing +1 on this proposal. |
https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps has been archived and new proposals can no longer be opened there. Remove the corresponding recommendation to use it. Refs: nodejs/TSC#335
https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps has been archived and new proposals can no longer be opened there. Remove the corresponding recommendation to use it. PR-URL: #23148 Refs: nodejs/TSC#335 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps has been archived and new proposals can no longer be opened there. Remove the corresponding recommendation to use it. PR-URL: #23148 Refs: nodejs/TSC#335 Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
|
Um ... shouldn't you have left a note about where to go instead at https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps#readme? |
@nodejs/tsc: For those who are not familiar with the term:
mothballing== tostop using (a piece of equipment or a building) but keep it in good condition so that it can readily be used again.Essentially, the
nodejs/node-epsprocess has not been an overly successful process. The conversations there tend to get lost in the weeds, fail to progress, and attract trolling and bad behavior. The process of just setting up a working fork or working via a PR has been extremely successful in comparison (seeURL,http2,n-api,node-chakracore, @bmeck's ESM PR, all for good examples).The
nodejs/node-epsapproach never really got the love it needed from the TSC/CTC to be successful. I'm proposing that we archive the repo and no longer push it as a recommended process.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: