doc: add missing introduced_in comments#16741
Conversation
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links.
| # ECMAScript Modules | ||
|
|
||
| <!--introduced_in=v9.x.x--> | ||
| <!--introduced_in=v8.5.0--> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Non-blocking nit/question: Is the helpful/interesting information to include when the feature was introduced as Experimental or is it when it is introduced as Stable? I would argue Stable is what I'd expect to see and what would be useful when looking in docs. In which case, this probably should stay as is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should use the first version in which the feature was documented regardless of the stability. Aren't docs for an experimental feature useful? If so why adding them in the first place?
That said, I'm fine with changing/removing the comment in all experimental modules/features.
| @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ | |||
| # HTTP2 | |||
|
|
|||
| <!--introduced_in=v8.4.0--> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same "Stable or Experimental?" questions as above.
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links. PR-URL: nodejs#16741 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]>
|
Landed in 97ba69f. |
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links. PR-URL: #16741 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]>
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links. PR-URL: #16741 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]>
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links. PR-URL: #16741 Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]>
6 participants
Add missing "introduced_in" comments for alternative version links.
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
doc