Closed
Conversation
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
build
Closed
richardlau
approved these changes
May 24, 2018
Member
richardlau
left a comment
richardlau
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't test this ATM but otherwise LGTM.
Member
|
@jasnell Out of interest, what's the reason this is a better choice than moving the referenced headers to |
gireeshpunathil
approved these changes
May 24, 2018
Member
|
+1 for fast tracking. |
addaleax
previously approved these changes
May 24, 2018
Member
|
@nodejs/release I agree with @jasnell, we should get out 10.2.1 with this asap |
bnoordhuis
requested changes
May 24, 2018
Member
bnoordhuis
left a comment
bnoordhuis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you prefix the filenames with node_? A filename like core.h is way too generic, that's going to create name conflicts.
Having said that, I don't really see a reason for these files to exist. I'd move them back into node.h, they're public API anyway.
danbev
approved these changes
May 24, 2018
4 tasks
Member
Author
|
As an alternative, we can do a quick revert on the original change, get a fixed 10.2.1 out, then revisit the original change. Given the slight push back and the need to get a fixed release out, the revert is likely the better short term choice. See #20938 |
addaleax
added a commit
to addaleax/node
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2018
Alternative to nodejs#20938 (clean revert) and nodejs#20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as nodejs#20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from nodejs#20925.
4 tasks
Member
Author
jasnell
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2018
Alternative to #20938 (clean revert) and #20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as #20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from #20925. PR-URL: #20939 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2018
Alternative to #20938 (clean revert) and #20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as #20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from #20925. PR-URL: #20939 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
3 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Missed in #20789 (I had mistakenly assumed the headers were picked up from the listing in node.gyp... and regular CI doesn't cover this).
Fixes: #20921
This needs to be fast tracked and a new 10.2.1 release spun up as soon as it lands.
/cc @richardlau @MylesBorins
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes