You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 17, 2021. It is now read-only.
I noticed in the latest release you added the stricter engines checks (disallowing non-lts versions of node). I've followed the discussions (#149 , #151 , #152) but I disagree with the actions taken.
Adding stricter engine checks in a minor release breaks semantic versioning, regardless of anything else, it's now causing peoples builds to fail. If you need to make it stricter please make this a major change instead of minor, so that people have the option of not upgrading.
If nothing else, please consider at least widening the supported range. I've raised a PR to widen it to include ^8.0.0 instead of ^8.9.0 in case you find this more palatable. Not all teams have the option of being on latest node versions. If you are not relying on features explicitly in 8.9.0 that aren't in 8.0.0, then there is no reason to not allow this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi there,
I noticed in the latest release you added the stricter engines checks (disallowing non-lts versions of node). I've followed the discussions (#149 , #151 , #152) but I disagree with the actions taken.
Adding stricter engine checks in a minor release breaks semantic versioning, regardless of anything else, it's now causing peoples builds to fail. If you need to make it stricter please make this a major change instead of minor, so that people have the option of not upgrading.
If nothing else, please consider at least widening the supported range. I've raised a PR to widen it to include ^8.0.0 instead of ^8.9.0 in case you find this more palatable. Not all teams have the option of being on latest node versions. If you are not relying on features explicitly in 8.9.0 that aren't in 8.0.0, then there is no reason to not allow this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: