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

Simplify isPlainObject #2986

Closed
gibson042 opened this Issue Mar 11, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@gibson042
Member

gibson042 commented Mar 11, 2016

We can skip property enumeration and just look for prototype/constructor directly (cf. #2970 (comment) ).

@gibson042 gibson042 added the Core label Mar 11, 2016

@gibson042 gibson042 added this to the 3.0.1 milestone Mar 11, 2016

@markelog

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markelog

markelog Mar 11, 2016

Member

3.0.1? It seems you already have a draft for the refactoring, is there any concerns for postponing?

Member

markelog commented Mar 11, 2016

3.0.1? It seems you already have a draft for the refactoring, is there any concerns for postponing?

@mgol

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mgol

mgol Mar 11, 2016

Member

We can be adding more & more small items to the milestone & never release; I think it's good to not add new things to 3.0.0 now if not necessary. We can always change the milestone down to 3.0.0 at the moment of merging.

Member

mgol commented Mar 11, 2016

We can be adding more & more small items to the milestone & never release; I think it's good to not add new things to 3.0.0 now if not necessary. We can always change the milestone down to 3.0.0 at the moment of merging.

@markelog

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markelog

markelog Mar 12, 2016

Member

Sounds more like invitation for bureaucratic discussion, since we can also do the opposite - make it a 3.0.0 and move it to 3.0.1 if necessary, if code is ready and tests are there i'm not sure why it can't be an easy fix.

In any way, i'm not suggesting to add a blocker label, but asking @gibson042 if there is any concerns with proposed code.

Member

markelog commented Mar 12, 2016

Sounds more like invitation for bureaucratic discussion, since we can also do the opposite - make it a 3.0.0 and move it to 3.0.1 if necessary, if code is ready and tests are there i'm not sure why it can't be an easy fix.

In any way, i'm not suggesting to add a blocker label, but asking @gibson042 if there is any concerns with proposed code.

@mgol

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mgol

mgol Mar 12, 2016

Member

Sounds more like invitation for bureaucratic discussion, since we can also do the opposite - make it a 3.0.0 and move it to 3.0.1 if necessary

This adds the burden of having to make an actual decision of moving it to a later milestone which can delay the release. This release has already dragged on for way too long.

if code is ready and tests are there

There is no PR so it's not ready yet.

Member

mgol commented Mar 12, 2016

Sounds more like invitation for bureaucratic discussion, since we can also do the opposite - make it a 3.0.0 and move it to 3.0.1 if necessary

This adds the burden of having to make an actual decision of moving it to a later milestone which can delay the release. This release has already dragged on for way too long.

if code is ready and tests are there

There is no PR so it's not ready yet.

@markelog

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markelog

markelog Mar 12, 2016

Member

I think you making an issue where there isn't one, if we can land it, i think we should, i can create pr right now, this discussion feels redundant and highly unproductive

Member

markelog commented Mar 12, 2016

I think you making an issue where there isn't one, if we can land it, i think we should, i can create pr right now, this discussion feels redundant and highly unproductive

@markelog

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markelog

markelog Mar 14, 2016

Member

Discussed at the meeting, if code will be submitted before 3.0.0 release, it will land, if not, then waiting until the next one

Member

markelog commented Mar 14, 2016

Discussed at the meeting, if code will be submitted before 3.0.0 release, it will land, if not, then waiting until the next one

@markelog markelog modified the milestones: 3.0.0, 3.0.1 Mar 14, 2016

gibson042 added a commit to gibson042/jquery that referenced this issue Mar 14, 2016

@timmywil timmywil closed this in e0d3bfa Apr 4, 2016

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 18, 2018

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.