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] I think we're getting closer.
  • Loading branch information
@jasnell
jasnell authored Aug 25, 2017
commit fbcd57962995d70de0bb21dbd73981acc088e2d7
20 changes: 12 additions & 8 deletions COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -272,14 +272,18 @@ The name of the new core module should not conflict with any existing
module in the ecosystem unless a written agreement with the owner of those
modules is reached to transfer ownership.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mcollina mcollina Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need to add a statement like: "if the new module name is free, a collaborator should park it as soon as possible, linking to the pull request that introduces the new module".

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.

oh right, good point

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mcollina mcollina Aug 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you still have not added this.

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.

oy... heh... one sec


New core modules must be landed with a [Stability Index][] of Experimental.
Pull requests proposing new core modules must still be marked semver-minor.
New core modules must remain Experimental until a semver-major release.

Pull requests introducing new core modules must be left open for at least
one week for review. For new modules that involve significant effort,
non-trivial additions to Node.js or significant new capabilities, an
[Enhancement Proposal][] is recommended but not required.
Pull requests introducing new core modules:

* Must be left open for at least one week for review.
* Must be labeled using the `ctc-review` label.
* Must have signoff from at least two CTC members.

New core modules must be landed with a [Stability Index][] of Experimental,
and must remain Experimental until a semver-major release.

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

### Deprecations

Expand Down