[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#1011816: Bug#1004471: Update node-terser to latest upstream (node-terser 5)

[Yadd]

On 25/06/2022 12:03, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Yadd (2022-06-25 09:51:05)
>> On 30/05/2022 13:07, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Quoting Yadd (2022-05-30 12:05:41)
>>>> here is a debdiff (debian part only) to update terser to version 5.13.1.
>>>> This fixes also #1011816 (FTBFS)
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> It seems you are sharing that patch as a proposal, as you only pushed
>>> some parts of it to git.
>>>
>>> ...and I disagree with some minor parts of it, so that's good: I will
>>> take a look at it, and when I get a better sense of it reply back here
>>> in more detail which parts I disagree with.
>>
>> Hi Jonas,
>>
>> did you have some time to look at this ?
> 
> Thanks for nudging - I had actually forgotten about this, but now dusted
> off and finalized my work (terser v4.8 will be in unstable shortly).
> Thanks again!
> 
> Your fixing the issues is great.  The minor issue I had with it
> was your sharing fixes for multiple issues as a single patch, making it
> hard to follow what exactly is going on, and consequently making it hard
> to navigate in it - i.e. adopt only some changes but not others.
> 
> Concretely, I am not ready to move to terser v5 yet, and this RC bug
> does *not* require bumping to terser v5.  Your sharing a fix for this
> issue that goes "first upgrade to terser v5, then patch that different
> codebase like this..." made it hard for me to change that *one line*
> really related to this bug:
> 
> -+if ("ecma" in opts) {
> ++if ("ecma" in opts && opts.ecma != undefined) {
> 
> Let me repeat to emphasize: I truly appreciate your work triaging bugs!
> 
> Just please consider making "atomic changes": One git commit (or patch
> file) per semantic change - not multiple lesser-related changes lumped
> together.

Thanks, usually  it seems like you prefer debdiff instead of MR, that's 
why I did this. Would you rather I make some MRs this time?