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

tools: apply custom buffer lint rule to /lib only #5371

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Feb 22, 2016

The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to /lib. In preparation for linting /benchmark, apply that
rule to /lib only to avoid churn in /benchmark.

Refs: #3983 (comment)

/cc @silverwind

The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: nodejs#3983 (comment)
@Trott Trott added buffer Issues and PRs related to the buffer subsystem. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. labels Feb 22, 2016
@silverwind
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Feb 22, 2016

Good idea. That will also help to reduce the churn in #5053

LGTM

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Feb 24, 2016

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Feb 24, 2016

Looks like Windows and ARM fanned hosts are not yet up and running on CI. Will try again later...

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Feb 25, 2016

Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2016
The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: nodejs#3983 (comment)
PR-URL: nodejs#5371
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <mic.besace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Feb 25, 2016

CI is 💚

Landed in d26417f

@Trott Trott closed this Feb 25, 2016
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2016
The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: #3983 (comment)
PR-URL: #5371
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <mic.besace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2016
The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: #3983 (comment)
PR-URL: #5371
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <mic.besace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 mentioned this pull request Mar 1, 2016
5 tasks
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2016
The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: #3983 (comment)
PR-URL: #5371
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <mic.besace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2016
The lint rule is there to avoid a circular-dependency issue that only
applies to `/lib`. In preparation for linting `/benchmark`, apply that
rule to `/lib` only to avoid churn in `/benchmark`.

Refs: #3983 (comment)
PR-URL: #5371
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <mic.besace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
@Trott Trott deleted the bench-lint branch January 13, 2022 22:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
buffer Issues and PRs related to the buffer subsystem. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants