-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 432
Should e18e recommendations factor in supported Node version? #1976
Copy link
Copy link
Open
Labels
e18eRelates to incorporating, linking to, or collaborating with https://e18e.devRelates to incorporating, linking to, or collaborating with https://e18e.devfrontFrontend, DesignFrontend, DesignuxRelated to wider UX decisionsRelated to wider UX decisions
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
e18eRelates to incorporating, linking to, or collaborating with https://e18e.devRelates to incorporating, linking to, or collaborating with https://e18e.devfrontFrontend, DesignFrontend, DesignuxRelated to wider UX decisionsRelated to wider UX decisions
I really like the e18e recommendations that npmx provides. However when I was looking at the chalk replacement recommendation for https://npmx.dev/package/azdo-npm-auth
I realised that to follow the recommendation I'd need to increment the minimum supported Node version for my package from 18 to 22. For this particular package I don't want make a breaking changes release as I have Node 20 users (and may for a while)
This got me to thinking; should the
engines.nodeinfluence e18e recommendations that are displayed? Or is it useful to have the info regardless? (Both views are potentially valid I think)Worth saying: I'm not sure how much information e18e surfaces around minimum versions for replacements, so even if customising display is desirable, it may not be feasible