Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 5, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@wbt
Copy link
Contributor

@wbt wbt commented Apr 12, 2022

Description

This replaces #4848 with another copy of the same PR. Previously, someone changed the base branch and merged it in there automatically, so it can't be reopened and remerged into the original target. The proposed replacement of #4861 modifies a lot of package-lock files that aren't allowed to be modified, so this version is re-proposed.

Copy link
Contributor

@jdevcs jdevcs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are conflicts in package-lock.json

@jdevcs jdevcs added the 1.x 1.0 related issues label Apr 13, 2022
@wbt
Copy link
Contributor Author

wbt commented Apr 13, 2022

As a maintainer, you have more ability than I do to revert changes in a particular file and resolve conflicts.
image
I can't do this because I'm not listed as a maintainer on this package.

Alternatively, a maintainer can see the changes being proposed here for the third time and manually make them again in a new branch, ideally proposing a PR that does not lead to conflict between maintainers about requirements related to package-lock.json.

This was submitted in the hopes it'd be helpful but the barriers to contribution in this project are in general significantly higher than they should be, meaning a lot of contributions which could add value are not worth making because the cost of the contribution exceeds its value. Ironically, this PR was intended to reduce that frustration, lowering the friction and barriers to contribution in one of the areas they are unnecessarily high, but the experience only demonstrated how high those barriers remain.

@spacesailor24
Copy link
Contributor

Superseded by #4987

@spacesailor24 spacesailor24 reopened this Apr 28, 2022
spacesailor24 added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2022
* Use && instead of ; to join composite commands

* npm i rimraf --save-dev

* Change command to run rimraf

* npm i

* Cut redundant command covered in test:cov

* Split checklist item into 2

* Use 'have' for grammatical consistency

* Add bash keyword before script source

* Add line to changelog with PR #

* Ran npm i

* npm i

Co-authored-by: WBT <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

1.x 1.0 related issues

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants