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
TypeScript versioning #1047
Comments
I assume these stats are global usage and not TS usage for execa? That is not representative of Execa users, and we only care about Execa users on recent Execa versions (the ones that would actually use v9). |
4.9 would be the absolute minimum. I would personally do at least 5+. You will be stuck with this version until the next major Execa version, which is probably not until next year. Even in |
I computed those stats from the npm versions page for You have a good point that this only concerns users who upgrade to v9, so they are most likely to have more up-to-date dependencies. I think it should be consistent with how you're doing this in your other packages. 5.1 sounds good to me, if this sounds good to you. I would suggest the following actions: What do you think? |
👍 |
Did |
Documenting
Should we document the minimum TypeScript version supported by Execa?
Testing
If we do, we could run
tsd
andtsc
on that older TypeScript version too, for testing.Current support
Right now, it appears that every minor version from
4.7
to5.4
works.In Execa
8.0.1
,4.5
and4.6
were supported too. So that was a breaking change actually for those users, which we might want to add to the release notes, if we were to document the minimum TypeScript version.I did a quick check on the usage of TypeScript versions in the last 7 days. It's a little approximate, but here it is:
Determining the minimum version
Each major release would optionally increase the minimum TypeScript minor version (since TypeScript does not quite respect semver and minor versions are usually kindof breaking). There are several strategies we could use to pick the minimum version:
I personally think:
That being said, you probably already have a strategy for this problem with your other packages, so being consistent with them is important too.
What are your thoughts on this @sindresorhus?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: