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

Update to eslint v9 #2489

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

Nemo157
Copy link
Member

@Nemo157 Nemo157 commented Apr 6, 2024

Switch to using deno as that allows referring to the config packages without having to setup a package.json and other stuff required when running eslint through node now.

@Nemo157 Nemo157 requested a review from a team as a code owner April 6, 2024 21:59
@github-actions github-actions bot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: This pull request has been implemented and needs to be reviewed label Apr 6, 2024
@Nemo157
Copy link
Member Author

Nemo157 commented Apr 6, 2024

I have an alternative using node with a package.json instead if anyone has opinions on which to use: Nemo157@2f41680

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I have an alternative using node with a package.json instead if anyone has opinions on which to use: Nemo157@2f41680

No preference on my side, so whichever sounds best to you.

Switch to using `deno` as that allows referring to the config packages without
having to setup a `package.json` and other stuff required when running `eslint`
through `node` now.
@Nemo157
Copy link
Member Author

Nemo157 commented Apr 7, 2024

My preference is this approach with deno, it avoids having to manage the whole package-lock.json when we don't really care about the transitive deps.

@syphar
Copy link
Member

syphar commented Apr 17, 2024

@Nemo157 @GuillaumeGomez I'm not sure I fully follow, is anything missing here? Or is this ready to be merged?

Generally you two can merge too :)

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I prefer to let PR owners with merge rights to merge their own PRs once approved so it's waiting on @Nemo157 here. ;)

@syphar syphar removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: This pull request has been implemented and needs to be reviewed label May 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants