This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add format distinction to phase 2 #215
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jdalton
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2018
giltayar
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2018
jkrems
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2018
|
PR approved in today's meeting. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'd like us to add the format distinction question to the Phase 2 process.
It seems important to finally tackle this one and get some movement on solutions here.
This includes any top-level --module flag, as well as internal imports to CommonJS for switching from ESM loading to CJS loading.