Skip to content

Commit 7020f97

Browse files
committed
docs: Add 2025-01-23 meeting notes
1 parent 8baf955 commit 7020f97

File tree

1 file changed

+84
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+84
-0
lines changed

notes/2025/2025-01-23.md

Lines changed: 84 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
1+
# 2025-01-23 ESLint TSC Meeting Notes
2+
3+
## Transcript
4+
5+
[`2025-01-23-transcript.md`](2025-01-23-transcript.md)
6+
7+
## Attending
8+
9+
- Nicholas C. Zakas (@nzakas) - TSC
10+
- Francesco Trotta (@fasttime) - TSC
11+
- Milos Djermanovic (@mdjermanovic) - TSC
12+
13+
@nzakas moderated, and @sam3k took notes.
14+
15+
## Topics
16+
17+
### Statuses
18+
19+
* **@nzakas:** worked on getting the GitHub bot working again, the extends RFC, the year in review post, and the CSS plugin.
20+
* **@mdjermanovic:** mostly reviewing PRs, then reviewing financial data, and prepared a PR for additional checks of rule examples.
21+
* **@fasttime:** mostly busy triaging and reviewing stuff, did some work on language plugin types and extended the multithread linting RFC. Also worked on the browser tests
22+
23+
24+
### RFC Duty update:
25+
* Jan 20 - @mdjermanovic
26+
* Jan 27 - @fasttime
27+
* Feb 3 - @nzakas
28+
29+
### [Bug: Error is thrown in `9.18.0` if `unstable_ts_config` flag is used](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/19337)
30+
31+
**TSC Summary:** This issue proposes that we change inactive flags to emit warnings instead of errors in these situations:
32+
33+
* An unstable flag becomes inactive because the feature is now enabled by default.
34+
* A stable flag becomes inactive because the feature is now enabled by default.
35+
* A flag moves from unstable to stable. The unstable flag should work just like the stable flag except that it emits a warning.
36+
37+
If an unstable flag is removed because the functionality is abandoned, then it throws an error.
38+
39+
**TSC Questions:**
40+
41+
1. Should we accept this proposal?
42+
2. Should inactive flags ever be removed?
43+
44+
**Resolution:** we've decided:
45+
46+
* We will accept the proposal as described in the issue.
47+
* Inactive flags will be removed each major release.
48+
* Abandoned features that will not land in ESLint should be removed (functionality and flag) in the next minor release.
49+
50+
**Action Items:** @mdjermanovic will describe these details on https://eslint.org/docs/latest/flags/ when the new functionality is implemented.
51+
52+
53+
### [Change Request: Provide a better system than "extension" rules](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/19173)
54+
55+
**TSC Summary:** This issue proposes starting to make ESLint core rules TypeScript-aware in order to eliminate duplication with typescript-eslint.
56+
57+
**TSC Question:** Do we want to accept this proposal?
58+
59+
**Resolution:** we would like to accept this proposal but make it TypeScript syntax-aware, not type-aware.
60+
61+
### Ajv & Old Node.js Deprecation Warnings
62+
63+
We're on an old version that is still working, but we've been getting complaints about deprecation warnings on Node.js v22. The last time we tried to upgrade it broke existing rules.
64+
65+
**Options:**
66+
1. Do we want to create our own fork of Ajv so we can make any changes we want?
67+
2. Do we want to try to upgrade it and see if the warning goes away?
68+
3. Do we want to investigate switching to a different package?
69+
70+
For some context, it's actually Node.js itself that's emitting this warning, not npm, so people are seeing it whenever they run ESLint on Node.js v22.
71+
72+
**Resolution:** we've decided to fork it for now as it's easiest course of action.
73+
74+
**Action Items:** @fasttime will fork Ajv
75+
76+
### Scheduled release for January 24th, 2025
77+
78+
**Action Items:**
79+
80+
- @mdjermanovic will release:
81+
- `eslint`
82+
- `@eslint/js`
83+
- `@eslint/markdown`
84+
- `@eslint/json`

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)