Intent to require Node 8.9.1/npm 5.5.1 for ESLint

65 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Banner

unread,
Apr 23, 2018, 7:21:04 AM4/23/18
to dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org, firefox-dev list
I would like to increase the minimum requirements for node with ESLint
to node v8.9.1, npm v5.5.1 for the following reasons:

* ESLint 5.x is now in alpha, and raises its minimum node requirement
level to 6.14.0 (ours is currently 6.9.1)
* MozillaBuild & our automation already use node 8.9.1
* node 8.9.1 ships with npm 5.5.1
* A lot has changed in npm between 3.10.x and 5.5.x, upgrading the
minimum will provide better consistency for developers, especially
with respect to npm-shrinkwrap.json/package-lock.json
* This brings us closer to what was suggested in the "Intent to
require Node to build..." thread.

I'm thinking about bumping this the week of 7th May - after the merges
have completed.

I would like to hear feedback - positive or negative - from anyone
likely to be affected by this proposal.

Please send comments to dev-platform or comment on bug 1456085.
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1456085>

Thanks

Mark

Nicholas Alexander

unread,
Apr 23, 2018, 11:11:01 AM4/23/18
to dev-pl...@lists.mozilla.org, firefox-dev list
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:20 AM, Mark Banner <mba...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I would like to increase the minimum requirements for node with ESLint to
> node v8.9.1, npm v5.5.1 for the following reasons:
>
> - ESLint 5.x is now in alpha, and raises its minimum node requirement
> level to 6.14.0 (ours is currently 6.9.1)
> - MozillaBuild & our automation already use node 8.9.1
> - node 8.9.1 ships with npm 5.5.1
> - A lot has changed in npm between 3.10.x and 5.5.x, upgrading the
> minimum will provide better consistency for developers, especially with
> respect to npm-shrinkwrap.json/package-lock.json
> - This brings us closer to what was suggested in the "Intent to
> require Node to build..." thread.
>
> I'm thinking about bumping this the week of 7th May - after the merges
> have completed.
>
> I would like to hear feedback - positive or negative - from anyone likely
> to be affected by this proposal.
>
Full steam ahead from me!

Nick
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages