-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.2k
tools: add new headers to tarball #20925
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
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't test this ATM but otherwise LGTM.
@jasnell Out of interest, what's the reason this is a better choice than moving the referenced headers to |
+1 for fast tracking. |
@nodejs/release I agree with @jasnell, we should get out 10.2.1 with this asap |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you prefix the filenames with node_
? A filename like core.h is way too generic, that's going to create name conflicts.
Having said that, I don't really see a reason for these files to exist. I'd move them back into node.h, they're public API anyway.
As an alternative, we can do a quick revert on the original change, get a fixed 10.2.1 out, then revisit the original change. Given the slight push back and the need to get a fixed release out, the revert is likely the better short term choice. See #20938 |
Alternative to nodejs#20938 (clean revert) and nodejs#20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as nodejs#20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from nodejs#20925.
Alternative to #20938 (clean revert) and #20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as #20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from #20925. PR-URL: #20939 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Alternative to #20938 (clean revert) and #20925 (adding the headers to the release tarball). The changes to `src/node.h` are a clean revert in the same ways as #20938 does it, the difference being that the new `.cc` files are kept here. This has the advantage of not being another large diff that other PRs will have to rebase against, especially since the split into `callback_scope.cc` and `exceptions.cc` is something that we want to keep in the long run. This essentialy implements bnoordhuis’s suggestion from #20925. PR-URL: #20939 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]>
Missed in #20789 (I had mistakenly assumed the headers were picked up from the listing in node.gyp... and regular CI doesn't cover this).
Fixes: #20921
This needs to be fast tracked and a new 10.2.1 release spun up as soon as it lands.
/cc @richardlau @MylesBorins
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes