merge v3.2.2 backport into main

[ljharb]

Followup to #354; this omits/reverts 3a89d8c, and bumps engines.node to >= 6.

It will be released as v4.0.1.

[benmccann]

My understanding is that the test runner was switched on the 3.x branch because you wanted to test against old versions of Node such as Node 0.4 that standard tools don't cover. However, since main only supports Node 6, there isn't a need to switch all the testing infrastructure here. The current infrastructure like jest, actions/setup-node, etc. are far more widely used. Switching to less commonly used infrastructure will make it harder for everyone else to contribute as they now need to learn a new set of tools and APIs.

[ljharb]

jest doesn’t support node 6, and it aggressively drops support for things. Using jest on packages is a maintenance obstacle that I’d prefer not to endure. (also, tape is just as much a “standard tool” as jest).

[ljharb]

Similarly, i use my custom actions on all 500+ of my projects; setup-node is largely unmaintained and only has wide usage because it was created by the GitHub actions team (who don’t seem very staffed now since it’s not AI-related)

[benmccann]

We could cut a v5 with a higher engines requirement to keep using the standard tools

Jest has about 35x more usage than tape, so the dev community is definitely more familiar with it: https://npmcharts.com/compare/tape,jest?log=true&interval=30

[ljharb]

Why would we want to go out of our way to exclude more users, just to use a more common test runner? Maintainer preferences matter here, not potential contributors - if it ends up being a problem (it hasn’t been one on any of my other packages), i can write the tests for contributors on their PRs.

[marcysutton]

👋 @ljharb org admin here digging in after a long time away. I understand you're trying to restore backwards compatibility, and upgrading dependencies as a result. My first question is around dependencies that you personally own, like the ESLint config and GitHub actions. Rather than depending on your own stuff, are there parts that could be added to this repo instead so that other maintainers can make changes rather than being locked out of those source files in your lhjarb ownership?

[ljharb]

@marcysutton hey! given the current outrage and harassment, i'd love if we could chat privately, and then publicly summarize the outcome afterwards. DM?

[marcysutton]

@ljharb left you some comments, mostly what we already discussed. Let me know if you have any questions!

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (main@39030e7). Learn more about missing BASE report.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #356   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage        ?   0.00%           
======================================
  Files           ?       1           
  Lines           ?     105           
  Branches        ?      20           
======================================
  Hits            ?       0           
  Misses          ?     105           
  Partials        ?       0           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[marcysutton]

Thanks for all the updates!

The merge-base changed after approval.