Continuation of #1492 ("bump request to 2.87.0") #1521
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
richardlau
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2018
maclover7
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2018
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/nodegyp-test-pull-request/83/ (edit: ✔️) |
|
Do you guys have an ETA on merge and publish? |
2 tasks
rvagg
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2018
PR-URL: #1521 Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
rvagg
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2018
PR-URL: #1521 Reviewed-By: Jon Moss <me@jonathanmoss.me> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
|
merged & published in v3.8.0 |
|
Thank you @rvagg! |
2 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's a shame that #1492 got mired in v0.10 support, it would have been so much easier to just ignore it! I don't even have an easy v0.10 at hand to test that it even works; although I have tried it out with
var execFileSync = require('./process-exec-sync')and it works.Anyway, this pulls in #1492 with a squash and a patch to make the code consistent with the codebase, fix a bunch of nits and a bug that was causing the test to fail on my Linux machine (a problem with
'node'not properly in PATH).Happy to get this published asap, just need some eyes on changes first.