Skip to content

meta: considerations for new core modules #15022

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
jasnell wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

meta: considerations for new core modules #15022

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9a17c71
meta: considerations for new core modules
jasnell Aug 24, 2017
101f84c
[Squash] Refine details based on feedback
jasnell Aug 25, 2017
41242d8
[Squash] Nit
jasnell Aug 25, 2017
479aeae
[Squash] Be forceful and assertive. Believe in yourself.
jasnell Aug 25, 2017
fbcd579
[Squash] I think we're getting closer.
jasnell Aug 25, 2017
00df632
[Squash] *Now* I think I've got it.
jasnell Aug 25, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
[Squash] Nit
  • Loading branch information
@jasnell
jasnell authored Aug 25, 2017
commit 41242d8c614f3cd3ab787efa21d0d5c839e4a30e
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -278,8 +278,8 @@ New core modules must remain Experimental until a semver-major release.

It is recommended to give PRs introducing new core modules at least one week
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Trott Trott Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Make it more forceful and concise:

Pull requests introducing new core modules must be left open for at least one week for review.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@jasnell jasnell Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

for review. For new modules that involve significant effort, non-trivial
additions to Node.js or significant new capabilities, an [EPS][] is
recommended but not required.
additions to Node.js or significant new capabilities, an
[Enhancement Proposal][] is recommended but not required.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Trott Trott Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This sentence is confusing to me. (For example, it implies that new modules typically are trivial additions to Node.js.)

How about this?:

If a new module has a large API surface, requires extensive changes to Node.js core, or adds extraordinary new functionality, open an [Enhancement Proposal][].


### Deprecations

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -661,4 +661,4 @@ LTS working group and the Release team.

[backporting guide]: doc/guides/backporting-to-release-lines.md
[Stability Index]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/doc/api/documentation.md#stability-index
[EPS]: https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps
[Enhancement Proposal]: https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps