Skip to content
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.

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

v2.0.0 #408

Merged
merged 39 commits into from
Sep 24, 2016
Merged

v2.0.0 #408

merged 39 commits into from
Sep 24, 2016

Conversation

benmosher
Copy link
Member

@benmosher benmosher commented Jul 2, 2016

#2.0!

First real breaking change! tracking progress here. Most discussion should probably occur on the individual issue pages.

core package (eslint-module-utils)

Pull out src/core into eslint-module-utils, to be published separately for other plugins to leverage.
(copied from #234, closes #233)

  • bikeshed a better name? (if you're interested in this, open an issue and reference this plzzz)
  • document (README, etc)
  • publish as v1
  • add published version to plugin package dependencies

@benmosher benmosher mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2016
9 tasks
@benmosher benmosher added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Jul 2, 2016
@benmosher benmosher mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2016
4 tasks
benmosher added 4 commits July 7, 2016 06:50
# Conflicts:
#	.babelrc
#	CHANGELOG.md
#	package.json
#	src/core/getExports.js
#	src/rules/export.js
#	src/rules/namespace.js
#	src/rules/no-duplicates.js
#	src/rules/no-unresolved.js
#	tests/src/core/resolve.js
#	utils/resolve.js
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 20, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 97.688% when pulling 3b21478 on v2 into b2184f0 on master.

# Conflicts:
#	CHANGELOG.md
#	README.md
#	package.json
#	src/core/getExports.js
#	src/core/ignore.js
#	src/rules/no-named-as-default-member.js
#	utils/parse.js
they may have always been broken (aka meaningless) in master
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 23, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 97.832% when pulling 6e3b530 on v2 into 0d98253 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Aug 23, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 97.838% when pulling d5af34e on v2 into 0d98253 on master.

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

We should probably drop support for Node v4 (if it's not already done) and update the rules to the latest format (http://eslint.org/blog/2016/07/eslint-new-rule-format). Willing to do the work, but that should not appear on master before we're close to releasing.

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

I'm up for the new format, but it wasn't obvious to me that it's urgently necessary, since the older format is still supported and updating the rules should not be a noticeable change for users, right?

Also: isn't ESLint still supporting Node v4?

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry, meant dropping support for Node < v4.

The older format is still supported, and the new format is supported by the latest 2.x versions. I consider it a breaking change, even if I haven't encountered any problems with it. Most plugins I've seen that have made the jump released a major version for it, though they almost all also started using ES2015 features supported by Node v4.

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

Let's knock it out, then. Feel free to push updated rules to this branch.

And yeah, this branch is v4+. 😎

# Conflicts:
#	package.json
#	src/index.js
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 15, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.1%) to 97.933% when pulling ef1745a on v2 into 2b471c7 on master.

- converted all rules using eslint-transforms tool
- updated no-unresolved + namespace to match tool output (module.exports vs. exports.{meta,create})
@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

@jfmengels anything else you can think of that we should address before publishing this?

I'm thinking of publishing as v2.0.0-beta.0?

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 15, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.09%) to 97.922% when pulling 20079c6 on v2 into 2b471c7 on master.

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

jfmengels commented Sep 15, 2016

Ah, good job for the rule format.
Let's publish a beta v2 yeah (don't forget --tag beta when publishing).

I think we could take a look at updating the recommended config, so that we can at least give a taste of the useful rules that don't need config. I'm thinking no-unresolved, no-extraneous-dependencies, etc. Not opiniated rules, just helpful and probable errors.
But we can do that after the first beta version.

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

@jfmengels I'll try to merge this over the weekend or early next week.

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

Cool! :)

@benmosher benmosher merged commit 20079c6 into master Sep 24, 2016
@jfmengels jfmengels deleted the v2 branch September 24, 2016 20:54
@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Expose the resolve function to other plugins
4 participants