export-ns-from (Needs Consensus PR)

[hzoo]

Champions: @jdalton @benjamn (prev @leebyron)
Spec Repo: https://github.com/leebyron/ecmascript-export-ns-from
Moved to Stage 2 at the July 2017 meeting: https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2017/07.md
Approved as a needs consensus PR at Sept 2017 meeting (Stage 4) (tc39/ecma262#1005)

Syntax

export * as ns from 'mod';

Implementation

• Already implemented in https://babeljs.io/docs/plugins/transform-export-extensions/ but we should split it out

[jdalton]

This is moving to a consensus PR (I'm unclear what stage that maps to).
That said, stage 2 sounds like a good place.

[ljharb]

I'm going to update the proposal list to make it stage 2, and when it becomes a merged PR, i'll move it directly from there to "finished" - so "stage 2" is correct imo :-)

[leobalter]

Considering we have one step left, stage 3 would be the best representation. This would also cause chaotic discussions. I wouldn't care on how this is listed, I'm happy to have the PR and tests coming.

…

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:27 AM Jordan Harband ***@***.***> wrote: I'm going to update the proposal list to make it stage 2, and when it becomes a merged PR, i'll move it directly from there to "finished" - so "stage 2" is correct imo :-) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#16 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AASYkW3maNbGDbEeMxZEfIianBIGJ2Ydks5sSNaggaJpZM4Olnrz> .

[ljharb]

To get to stage 3, the spec would need signoff, which is part of the PR review process - so it's not stage 3 until it's mergeable, and it's not stage 4 til it's merged - but it's stage 2 now.

[hzoo]

Made an issue to split the proposals into 2 if anyone wants to comment more babel/babel#6075

[ljharb]

Updated the title to reflect that this no longer is a proposal, and thus has no stage, but can be landed as soon as it has consensus from the committee (which requires test262 tests)

[xtuc]

Should we close it in the meantime? I feel like we have to many issues on this repo.

[jdalton]

I'm 👎 on closing.

There's currently 26 open issues (not too bad considering Babel proper has ~500) and this is something that's totally valid.

[ljharb]

I also think it should remain open; if we want to reduce the number of issues open on a repo, let’s fix all of the things they’re referencing instead of sweeping the problem under the rug.