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

RFC: 3.0 stdout moved off of APIs that are pending removal #280

Closed
ChALkeR opened this issue May 14, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

RFC: 3.0 stdout moved off of APIs that are pending removal #280

ChALkeR opened this issue May 14, 2016 · 8 comments
Labels
discussion This issue is requesting comments and discussion

Comments

@ChALkeR
Copy link

ChALkeR commented May 14, 2016

It was never documented and was supposed to be internal.
Used at node.js#L164.

Refs: nodejs/node#6749

@thebigredgeek thebigredgeek added the wont-fix This is not a feature or proposal that will be incorporated, or a bug that won't be addressed label Dec 14, 2016
@TooTallNate TooTallNate reopened this Dec 20, 2016
@thebigredgeek thebigredgeek added discussion This issue is requesting comments and discussion v3 and removed wont-fix This is not a feature or proposal that will be incorporated, or a bug that won't be addressed labels Dec 26, 2016
@thebigredgeek
Copy link
Contributor

lets discuss here

@thebigredgeek thebigredgeek changed the title fs.SyncWriteStream is pending removal RFC: 3.0 stdout moved off of APIs that are pending removal Dec 26, 2016
TooTallNate added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 27, 2016
Now simply uses `process.stderr`. Breaking API change,
for the v3 branch.

Previously used internal and undocumented Node.js APIs to support
this underly used API.

Fixes #280
Closes #386
thebigredgeek pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 28, 2016
* remove DEBUG_FD

Now simply uses `process.stderr`. Breaking API change,
for the v3 branch.

Previously used internal and undocumented Node.js APIs to support
this underly used API.

Fixes #280
Closes #386

* remove DEBUG_FD from readme
@ChALkeR
Copy link
Author

ChALkeR commented Dec 30, 2016

I'm not quite sure what's going on with the «won't fix»/reopening/renaming and the proposed discussion, but I do have a quick question — does that line get called for a significant amount of debug users or not?

@TooTallNate
Copy link
Contributor

@ChALkeR We're going to remove the offending code. Please see #406.

@ChALkeR
Copy link
Author

ChALkeR commented Jan 3, 2017

@TooTallNate Thanks. Could you clarify for what usecases was that line called? Only when DEBUG_FD was set to something other than 1 and 2, or for something even more specific?

@TooTallNate
Copy link
Contributor

Correct, only when DEBUG_FD was something other than 1 or 2, which was a very low number people (in any...). I've never used it.

@TooTallNate
Copy link
Contributor

@ChALkeR That said, even though debug no longer will use createWritableStdioStream(), it would be nice if Node.js exposed that kind of thing for other use-cases.

@TooTallNate
Copy link
Contributor

Gonna close this btw, since the relevant PRs have been merged at this point.

@thebigredgeek
Copy link
Contributor

Sgtm

thebigredgeek pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2017
* remove DEBUG_FD

Now simply uses `process.stderr`. Breaking API change,
for the v3 branch.

Previously used internal and undocumented Node.js APIs to support
this underly used API.

Fixes #280
Closes #386

* remove DEBUG_FD from readme
TooTallNate added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 8, 2017
* remove DEBUG_FD

Now simply uses `process.stderr`. Breaking API change,
for the v3 branch.

Previously used internal and undocumented Node.js APIs to support
this underly used API.

Fixes #280
Closes #386

* remove DEBUG_FD from readme
TooTallNate added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 8, 2017
* remove DEBUG_FD

Now simply uses `process.stderr`. Breaking API change,
for the v3 branch.

Previously used internal and undocumented Node.js APIs to support
this underly used API.

Fixes #280
Closes #386

* remove DEBUG_FD from readme
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion This issue is requesting comments and discussion
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants