Backporting regression fix from master to 9.x #44

Activity

1. MylesBorins

   added

   discussion

   on Mar 6, 2018
2. jdalton commented on Mar 6, 2018

   

   jdalton

   on Mar 6, 2018

   Last edited by jdalton

   Member

   More actions

   I don't see this as controversial.
   That said, bugs in something experimental are nothing new so I don't see backporting as a must either.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Jordan Harband
3. benjamingr commented on Mar 7, 2018

   

   benjamingr

   on Mar 7, 2018

   Last edited by benjamingr

   Member

   More actions

   Are there objections to landing this? As it had been landed on master prior to us deciding that we wanted to discuss a code freeze, I think it makes sense to backport.

   In general, I think that:

   • The consensus is against a code freeze at the moment, while we agreed that the current implementation might break in incompatible ways.
   • We should default to the current status, as we're not a chartered working group - even if we wanted to object to landing something we should likely do so in the "regular" TSC approved way (in the PR)

   👍React with 👍2Reacted by Jordan Harband and Michaël Zasso
4. MylesBorins commented on Mar 7, 2018

   

   MylesBorins

   on Mar 7, 2018

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Thanks for chiming in folks. I landed the backport. We can discuss further in the meeting next week
5. MylesBorins

   closed this as completedon Mar 7, 2018