Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fs: move SyncWriteStream to internal/fs - #6749
Conversation
jasnell
commented
May 13, 2016
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not in this PR. There are several similar updates that can be made elsewhere in this file that should be done in a separate PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
perhaps and will be removed soon/in Node.js v***?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because domain and fs.existsSync are also deprecated 😉.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps just will be removed soon without a firm version.
jasnell
commented
May 15, 2016
@nodejs/ctc ... Tagging as ctc-agenda because it's (a) a semver-major and (b) requires a deprecation. I don't think this one is particularly controversial tho. |
rvagg
commented
May 15, 2016
+1, but only after a full deprecation cycle |
Ah, also +1 from me (with a deprecation cycle). https://gist.github.com/ChALkeR/f2cb74429769e91752d4b7f41b70dda2 — I'll copy my comment from a note above:
|
f2f6515 to
90508a0CompareThe deprecation is in there now. Just squashed the commits down. |
jasnell
commented
May 16, 2016
CI is green. |
@jasnell that serialport failure on ppc is new... rerunning on master to double check edit: looks like there was an update to serialport that may have broken this |
jasnell
commented
May 16, 2016
hmm... I've seen that serialport failure before. I believe I was running citgm locally tho. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note to self, this doesn't need to be done. But for future optimization.
A run on master has serialport tests passing on ppc Here's another run of this pull's head just to make sure it wasn't a one off: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/thealphanerd-smoker/269/ edit: was green this time... ¯_(ツ)_/¯ |
ronkorving
commented
May 18, 2016
Happy to see this out of fs.js, LGTM. |
This is blocked by #6413, btw. I mean — merging this will obviously break reevaluating |
jasnell
commented
May 18, 2016
chrisdickinson
commented
May 18, 2016
I'm curious — aside from the comment that notes that it was supposed to be private, what's the reasoning behind making this private now? It seems like it might not be worth potentially breaking things to move this into |
jasnell
commented
May 18, 2016
CTC discussion on this was to leave this open but hold off on landing until a later date after #6413 lands. |
targos
commented
Sep 1, 2016
It's a semver-patch that depends on a semver-major, right? Adding the "dont-land" labels. |
jasnell
commented
Sep 1, 2016
I believe so, yes, landing on v6 should be fine tho as I believe the semver-major landed there. Could be wrong. |
targos
commented
Sep 1, 2016
The |
jasnell
commented
Sep 1, 2016
ah yes, because of the graceful-fs warning. You're right. That's fine, it wouldn't be critical to land this in v6 at all. |
jasnell
commented
Sep 1, 2016
@targos ... other than the don't land labels, does this LGTY? |
jasnell
commented
Sep 1, 2016
@ChALkeR ... does this still LGTY? The only change is that I removed the runtime deprecation |
ChALkeR
commented
Sep 2, 2016
@jasnell, what does the «doc-only deprecation» mean here? It isn't documented =). |
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
It just means adding the code comment that indicates the intention to On Friday, September 2, 2016, Сковорода Никита Андреевич <
|
ChALkeR
commented
Sep 2, 2016
@jasnell What would be the difference to users between runtime deprecation in v7 and runtime deprecation in v8? Why do we prefer the latter? |
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
Given the issues that have been caused by other runtime deprecations, and On Friday, September 2, 2016, Сковорода Никита Андреевич <
|
ChALkeR
commented
Sep 2, 2016
@jasnell Ah, ok. LGTM. =) |
@jasnell Perhaps that could be included into the release notes, for this and other «documentation-only» deprecations of undocumented functions. |
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
+1 to adding it to the release notes. |
Move the implementation of SyncWriteStream to internal/fs.
818f2e4 to
7fbd77cComparejasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
Some weird red in that last CI run... trying again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/3928/ |
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
@nodejs/build ... there's definitely something weird happening with arm in CI |
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
Failures in CI are unrelated. Landing! |
Move the implementation of SyncWriteStream to internal/fs. PR-URL: #6749 Reviewed-By: Ron Korving <ron@ronkorving.nl> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <chalkerx@gmail.com>
jasnell
commented
Sep 2, 2016
Landed in dc72779 |
chadfurman
commented
Nov 12, 2016
How do we install "internal/fs" ? when I run |
sam-github
commented
Nov 14, 2016
You don't install internal/fs, this is a bug in graceful-fs, sounds like. |
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
fs
Description of change
Move the internal SyncWriteStream class to internal/fs. This pulls it off require('fs') without a deprecation. It was always intended to be private, says that it's private in the source and tells people not to use it.
Update the impl a bit while we're at it to use class instead of util.extends