Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
url: remove unused URL::ToObject() method - #14106
Conversation
bmeck
commented
Jul 6, 2017
Used in ESM |
jasnell
commented
Jul 10, 2017
-1... this was added to support ongoing future development work. It should not be removed. |
bnoordhuis
commented
Jul 10, 2017
I've commented on that in #14096. Suffice to say I think it's plain stupid1 to land unused code. To add more insult, unused code with glaring bugs in it. The "but it's going to be used any day now" argument doesn't hold water, this code has been in master for months. I'm keeping this PR around in case that ESM PR doesn't materialize in the next few days. Consider it a Sword of Damocles. 1 In case you take exception to that word, take comfort in the fact that I thought for quite some time about alternative wording and couldn't come up with anything that still does justice to the way I feel about this. |
bmeck
commented
Jul 10, 2017
@bnoordhuis is that some sort threat to land this regardless of how others feel? |
bnoordhuis
commented
Jul 10, 2017
Not a threat, I'm just not closing it just yet. I'll put it before the CTC if this ESM PR doesn't happen quick enough unless @jasnell changes his mind in the mean time. |
gibfahn
commented
Jul 12, 2017
Agreed that it shouldn't have landed without the code that uses it (unless there's a particular reason to). However now it's here removing it adds churn, so unless ESM is >6months away from master it doesn't seem worth removing. |
bnoordhuis
commented
Jul 17, 2017
@bmeck Status update? 'Next day or two' is almost two weeks ago now. |
bmeck
commented
Jul 17, 2017
via email
Death in family, dont care. Keep pestering. …On Jul 17, 2017 5:37 AM, "Ben Noordhuis" ***@***.***> wrote:
@bmeck <https://github.com/bmeck> Status update? 'Next day or two' is
almost two weeks ago now.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14106 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOUo2CCdGsGIdg-WTkvPxQwoUe6klyHks5sOzl0gaJpZM4OPt2Y>
.
|
jasnell
commented
Jul 17, 2017
I'm still -1 on removing this. There's no reason to do so, the small amount of code is harmless, adds zero burden on anyone, and is planned for use. Anyone who feels strongly enough can ask for a vote, of course. |
bnoordhuis
commented
Jul 17, 2017
targos
commented
Jul 17, 2017
I see no problem in removing it. This commit can just be reverted when the method is needed. |
bnoordhuis
commented
Jul 27, 2017
jasnell
commented
Jul 31, 2017
@bnoordhuis ... Yes. |
TimothyGu
commented
Aug 1, 2017
This is getting silly. The function works, and there is an open PR using this function. It would be counterproductive to remove it now. Closing. |
bnoordhuis
commented
Aug 1, 2017
@TimothyGu Well, duh - that's why I asked the question. But read up on the history, it's been defective for most of its lifetime and rather glaringly so. I don't want this to happen again. |
Alternative to #14096.
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9008/