Skip to content
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

doc, bin: stop suggesting opening node-gyp issues #2096

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

bzoz
Copy link
Contributor

@bzoz bzoz commented Apr 7, 2020

Checklist
Description of change

A lot of new issues in node-gyp are related to outdated node-gyp or broken modules. This removes the suggestion to open a new issue in the node-gyp, instead suggesting the user should open the issue in the module issue tracker.

It also makes the issue template more explicit about providing the logs.

A lot of new issues in node-gyp are related to outdated node-gyp or
broken modules. This removes the suggestion to open a new issue in the
node-gyp, instead suggesting the user should open the issue in the
module issue tracker. It also makes the issue template more explicit
about providing the logs.
npm info using node@v13.9.0

Usage: npm <command>
(...)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we talk about three backticks on a line by themselves above the first line of the log and the same below the last line of the log?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I hope that people will just overwrite the example output, not paying to much attention to the backticks. We can add one more extra line here to make it easier for users to use backticks correctly.

bin/node-gyp.js Outdated
'Try to update node-gyp and file an Issue if it does not help:',
' <https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp/issues>'
log.error('', ['Node-gyp failed to build your package.',
'Try to update node-gyp and if it does not help file an issue with the package author'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"update node-gyp" is no trivial matter though, I think this was written even before it was bundled with npm. Maybe we should say "Try to update npm and/or node-gyp" or something along those lines? I don't think we can fit in explanations of how to make npm use an external node-gyp in this message and that's not necessarily good practice anyway.

@bzoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

bzoz commented Apr 8, 2020

Updated. PTAL

bzoz added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2020
A lot of new issues in node-gyp are related to outdated node-gyp or
broken modules. This removes the suggestion to open a new issue in the
node-gyp, instead suggesting the user should open the issue in the
module issue tracker. It also makes the issue template more explicit
about providing the logs.

PR-URL: #2096
Reviewed-By: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
@bzoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

bzoz commented Apr 16, 2020

Landed in 5d06460

@bzoz bzoz closed this Apr 16, 2020
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2020
A lot of new issues in node-gyp are related to outdated node-gyp or
broken modules. This removes the suggestion to open a new issue in the
node-gyp, instead suggesting the user should open the issue in the
module issue tracker. It also makes the issue template more explicit
about providing the logs.

PR-URL: #2096
Reviewed-By: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2020
A lot of new issues in node-gyp are related to outdated node-gyp or
broken modules. This removes the suggestion to open a new issue in the
node-gyp, instead suggesting the user should open the issue in the
module issue tracker. It also makes the issue template more explicit
about providing the logs.

PR-URL: #2096
Reviewed-By: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>
Reviewed-By: Rod Vagg <rod@vagg.org>
@rvagg rvagg mentioned this pull request May 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants