[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#47282] [PATCH 00/13] node going forward
From: |
Timothy Sample |
Subject: |
[bug#47282] [PATCH 00/13] node going forward |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Apr 2021 21:19:46 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org> writes:
> Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com> writes:
>
>> • Change the “Fix incorrect import semantics” comments to “Fix
>> imports for esbuild”. To me, if TypeScript’s tsc likes the
>> imports, they are correct TypeScript (despite the esbuild bug
>> report).
>
> "Something a native speaker of English can make sense of" != "Proper
> English", and in that same vein I don't think a commmon mistake with
> workaround in place is not a mistake.
>
> I really don't care about what ends up in the codebase though, as long
> as it is clear why we do what we do, which works out just fine with your
> comment.
Heh. You’re right: it’s not a big deal. Thanks for humouring me. :)
>> The final result is still a little messy, but I don’t think we should
>> hold this back any longer. It’s a significant step forward, and it puts
>> us in better shape to improve things incrementally.
>>
>> WDYT? Let me know if I made anything worse! :) If the altered patches
>> look good to you, I suggest you go ahead and push them.
>
> I still adressed some of Efraim's remarks, and pushed it to master just
> now.
Nice!!
> There are quite some ways to go from here:
>
> * Get the 'binary' importer upstreamable (I will continue with this)
>
> * Properly support cross-compilation of Node and Node-packages
>
> I had a super quick look at this, but it seems that in building node,
> you build intermediate tools that run on the host. Perhaps some our
> x-compilation gurus can weigh in.
>
> * Make a Rome-based build system, once Rome does more than linting, to
> help untangle the knot that is JavaScript-packaging
Sounds pretty exciting!
-- Tim