Use whitelist instead of blacklist for packaging #2479
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
ryanflorence
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2015
Use whitelist instead of blacklist for packaging
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We currently have a bunch of random stuff like
coverage/and.travis.ymlin our distributed tarball. IMO it's easier to keep track of things when whitelisting rather than blacklisting frompackage.json, and easier to tell what we're doing.This does drop
modules/from the tarball, though - I do feel that it's pretty standard to exclude the pre-transpiled ES6 sources from most builds (React does this, for example), but - Chesterton's fence and all.