镜像站点 · 本页由第三方 GitHub 只读镜像提供,非 GitHub 官方站点,不接受任何登录或凭据输入。前往 github.com
Skip to content

Shipping recursive fs.mkdir() in v10.x #604

Closed

Description

@Trott

Based on conversation in #601 and nodejs/node#22585, I believe the following TSC members are in favor of shipping recursive mkdir() in v10.x as-is (that is, as something that can be turned on in the options object of fs.mkdir()):

  1. @Trott
  2. @addaleax
  3. @joyeecheung
  4. @mhdawson
  5. @gabrielschulhof
  6. @MylesBorins
  7. @targos
  8. @mcollina
  9. @cjihrig
  10. @ofrobots

And in the not-objecting/abstaining department:

  1. @apapirovski

Lastly, opposed to doing it at this time:

  1. @jasnell
  2. @danbev
  3. @thefourtheye
  4. @Fishrock123

I don't believe further conversation is likely to move many people from one camp to the other. And I don't believe that taking more time to decide this is in the interest of the community. I therefore would like to call for a vote. (Anyone on the TSC can stop the vote by disagreeing that it's time for a vote and indicating that they believe more conversation would be useful. I implore you not to do that, but I can't stop you from doing it if it's what you believe.)

So, vote counting: If I have you categorized correctly above, please leave a comment to that effect or else a 👍 on this comment. If I have you categorized incorrectly, please leave a comment indicating how to correct. If I have not categorized you at all, please leave a comment as to where your vote should go. That last one would apply to @rvagg @fhinkel @ChALkeR @gibfahn @TimothyGu

Activity

  1. Trott commented on Sep 21, 2018

    @Trott
    MemberAuthor

    And I'll make this comment for tallying things once people confirm their sentiments above:

    YES:

    1. @Trott
    2. @ofrobots
    3. @joyeecheung
    4. @targos
    5. @cjihrig
    6. @MylesBorins
    7. @addaleax
    8. @mhdawson
    9. @gabrielschulhof
    10. @mcollina

    NO:

    1. ...

    ABSTAIN:

    1. @fhinkel
  2. jasnell commented on Sep 21, 2018

    @jasnell
    Member

    As I've clarified a couple of times now, I'm not opposed to shipping recursive mkdir in 10.x. I'm opposed to shipping it if we're going to change it after we settle on the feature detection. I'm perfectly fine with shipping it now so long as it's understood that the feature detection discussion is a wholly separate issue.

  3. Trott commented on Sep 21, 2018

    @Trott
    MemberAuthor

    As I've clarified a couple of times now, I'm not opposed to shipping recursive mkdir in 10.x. I'm opposed to shipping it if we're going to change it after we settle on the feature detection. I'm perfectly fine with shipping it now so long as it's understood that the feature detection discussion is a wholly separate issue.

    There is no consensus to avoid the alias which is why I listed you as opposed.

  4. mhdawson commented on Sep 24, 2018

    @mhdawson
    Member

    +1 for shipping as is.

  5. fhinkel commented on Sep 24, 2018

    @fhinkel
    Contributor

    I abstain.

  6. mcollina commented on Sep 24, 2018

    @mcollina
    SponsorMember

    +1 for shipping as is.

  7. Trott commented on Sep 24, 2018

    @Trott
    MemberAuthor

    With 10 votes for and 1 abstention, that's enough to decide it for "ship it". :shipit:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions