Release 3.0.0

[UlisesGascon]

What's Changed

• chore: upgrade scorecard workflow pinned action versions by @carpasse in chore: upgrade scorecard workflow pinned action versions #40
• deps: mime-types@^3.0.1 by @UlisesGascon in deps: mime-types@^3.0.1 #42
• fix: update engines field by @UlisesGascon in fix: update engines field #43

New Contributors

• @UlisesGascon made their first contribution in deps: mime-types@^3.0.1 #42

Full Changelog: 2.0.0...master

[blakeembrey]

There’s no reason to release this from what I can see, why are we trying to publish?

[UlisesGascon]

Sorry @blakeembrey. This is the correct link: 2.0.0...master

[blakeembrey]

Right, I saw that, and didn’t see what we were trying to release. I’d prefer to land other breaking changes in a major release, especially since the engines field is just semantics right now.

[wesleytodd]

We had discussed doing just that on the working session call today. The issue was that I didn't correctly update it when we went with the last major. We had this same thing happen in fresh so we thought we would just follow what happened there to keep moving forward. I honestly agree it is just semantics, but we were also recognizing that this change now would mean we can keep one major shipped in the express 5 line, as that is why this release is happening now.

[blakeembrey]

we were also recognizing that this change now would mean we can keep one major shipped in the express 5 line, as that is why this release is happening now.

I don’t understand this, sorry. Isn’t express 5 already using v2 so that ship has sailed?

Additionally this package can’t be used in the stated version as it’d have syntax errors, so I’d prefer to release as a patch, which I thought we’d discussed/agreed to last year. Or that we’d drop the field entirely if we had this mistake and fix it the next major.

[blakeembrey]

As the package already doesn’t work for the stated versions in v2, I’d prefer to avoid churn and instead remove engines from the current major instead. We can do the release with this alongside actual breaking changes.

[UlisesGascon]

As the package already doesn’t work for the stated versions in v2, I’d prefer to avoid churn and instead remove engines from the current major instead. We can do the release with this alongside actual breaking changes.

So in this case and based in the current changelog, we can skip this release for now in the [email protected] train. Not sure if #42 is relevant enough to release [email protected]. IMO is not needed but WDYT @wesleytodd ?

[wesleytodd]

I am not going to say this conversation has been well organized, but either way we had 4 of the 6 active members TC on the working session and in an attempt to keep forward momentum we decided to go with this option. Yes it is not what we hope to from our discussions here and here, but it is what was done in fresh and because this is a near zero impact issue I do not believe we should spend a lot of time on this. I am 100% fine with removing engines and keeping it in this major 2.x but I am also 100% fine with releasing this as is. I am also 100% fine if we do not release.

IMO the only real benefit of releasing this is it is ready/done and the only benefit of going with @blakeembrey's suggestion is to avoid the blocking review. It is an easy change either way and it seems much harder to reach consensus to release this as is. The easiest option is to not publish, which is what @UlisesGascon proposed last and is in line with @blakeembrey's original suggestion, so sounds like we would all be fine with just closing this.

If not, please re-open, but if we do not re-open in the next few hours we will not be releasing this for the upcoming express release to the latest dist-tag.