Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1697

github-actions · 2025-03-10T09:53:02Z

Background: #1527

Vote instructions:

on the web: https://nodejs.github.io/caritat/#https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1697

on the CLI:

git node vote https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1697 --gpg-sign

To close the vote, at least 3 secret holder(s)¹ must run the following command: git node vote https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1697 --decrypt-key-part --post-comment

/cc @nodejs/tsc

Current estimated participation: 94.44%

secret holders are folks who have access to the private key associated with a public key on hkps://keys.openpgp.org that references an email address listed on the TSC voting member list at the time of the opening of the vote. ↩

mcollina · 2025-03-10T10:13:45Z

Didn't work:

remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (3/3), completed with 3 local objects.
remote: error: GH013: Repository rule violations found for refs/heads/votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33.
remote: Review all repository rules at https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/rules?ref=refs%2Fheads%2Fvotes%2Fe4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33
remote:
remote: - Commits must have verified signatures.
remote:   Found 1 violation:
remote:
remote:   8163b99b3b54ff6b9b2753a9146d5072fe7c45d1
remote:
To github.com:nodejs/TSC.git
 ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33 (push declined due to repository rule violations)
error: failed to push some refs to 'github.com:nodejs/TSC.git'
Error: git push,git@github.com:nodejs/TSC.git,HEAD:votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33 failed: 1
    at ChildProcess.<anonymous> (file:///Users/matteo/.nvm/versions/node/v22.14.0/lib/node_modules/node-core-utils/node_modules/@node-core/caritat/dist/utils/runChildProcessAsync.js:32:27)
    at ChildProcess.emit (node:events:518:28)
    at maybeClose (node:internal/child_process:1101:16)
    at ChildProcess._handle.onexit (node:internal/child_process:304:5)

how can I handle this?

mcollina · 2025-03-10T14:15:50Z

In case you wonder, the correct command is git node vote https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1697 --gpg-sign I've updated it.

mcollina · 2025-03-11T19:20:13Z

@nodejs/tsc please vote.

anonrig · 2025-03-11T20:21:11Z

In case you wonder, the correct command is git node vote https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1697 --gpg-sign I've updated it.

I couldn't sign it with SSH key. Is GPG the only way?

aduh95 · 2025-03-11T20:26:28Z

Is GPG the only way?

No, GitHub supports different kind of signatures, including SSH and PGP.

votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33/vote.yml

marco-ippolito · 2025-03-17T12:13:18Z

Its been a week should we close it?

joyeecheung · 2025-03-17T14:46:52Z

FWIW what worked for me (I already have GPG keys installed locally, that is, I can use gpg/dotgpg just alright with the Node.js secrets repo to work with the build machines. but I've not been setting it up to sign commits after I switched to a new macOS laptop & upgraded macOS) is

git config --global gpg.program gpg
git config --global commit.gpgsign true
export GPG_TTY=$(tty)

mhdawson · 2025-03-17T14:47:46Z

@anonrig would using the UI instead of using the script be an option for you?

mcollina · 2025-03-19T15:23:57Z

I would like to close this vote, and for this effect, I'm revealing my key part:

-----BEGIN SHAMIR KEY PART-----
GiimmGmsHIegfNJ0q4BzDJ8RgbkRuFV4neVQyeOY0o8K
-----END SHAMIR KEY PART-----

RafaelGSS · 2025-03-19T15:25:37Z

I would like to close this vote, and for this effect, I'm revealing my key part:

-----BEGIN SHAMIR KEY PART-----
+mOArcCPXoJKXvJuqC639VcWC4he4zeLtIuP1calMjsM
-----END SHAMIR KEY PART-----

github-actions · 2025-03-19T15:34:55Z

Election results

Subject: Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution?
End date: 2025-03-19T15:34:53.878Z
Participation: 94.44%

Results

Winning candidate: Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.

Table of results

Candidate	Number of won duels
Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a `corepack` executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.	4
Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a `corepack` executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.	3
Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the `corepack` executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.	2
Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the `corepack` executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.	1
Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. `corepack`, `pnpm`, and `yarn` executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.	0

Voting data

Participants:

Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>¹
Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com>²
Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com>³
James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>⁴
Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>⁵
Marco Ippolito <marcoippolito54@gmail.com>⁶
Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>⁷
Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>⁸
Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>⁹
Paolo Insogna <paolo@cowtech.it>¹⁰
Rafael Gonzaga <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com>¹¹
Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>¹²
Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com>¹³
Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>¹⁴
Ruy Adorno <ruy@vlt.sh>¹⁵
Tobias Nießen <tniessen@tnie.de>¹⁶
Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz@nizipli.com>¹⁷

Private key to decrypt ballots

Discarded commits

Some commits have not been taken into account when counting the ballots:

[
  {
    "commitInfo": {
      "sha": "17fae0a86603c2c9f7b850835fe82e797afec4d6",
      "signatureStatus": "E",
      "author": "RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com>",
      "files": [
        "votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33/RafaelGSS.json"
      ]
    },
    "reason": "The commit author (RafaelGSS <rafael.nunu@hotmail.com>) is not in the list of allowed voters."
  }
]

1. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
2. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental and Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
3. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
4. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
↩
Voted against Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line. ↩
Abstained. ↩
Voted for Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental. ↩
1. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
2. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
3. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line, Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today, and Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
↩
Voted for Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental. ↩
1. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
2. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
3. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
4. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
5. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
↩
1. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
2. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
3. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
4. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
5. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
↩
1. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line and Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
2. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental and Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
3. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
↩
1. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
2. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
3. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
4. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
5. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
↩
Abstained. ↩
1. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
2. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
3. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
4. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
5. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
↩
1. Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
2. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental.
3. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line and Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
4. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
↩
1. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
2. Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
3. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental and Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
4. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
↩
1. Phase out later: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future (i.e. 25+) release lines of Node.js – existing release lines as well as the very next (i.e. 24.x) will keep it as experimental and Phase out: stop distributing Corepack (i.e. the distribution will no longer contain a corepack executable) on future release lines of Node.js – existing release lines will keep it as experimental.
2. Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, experimental and disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), exactly as it is today.
3. Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line and Stable and Disabled: keep distributing Corepack disabled (i.e. only the corepack executable in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line.
↩
Abstained. ↩
Voted for Stable and Enabled: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, enabled (i.e. corepack, pnpm, and yarn executables in the distribution), and mark it stable in a future release line. ↩

mon-jai · 2025-03-19T16:56:20Z

Will corepack stay maintained or be deprecated?

marco-ippolito · 2025-03-19T17:20:18Z

Will corepack stay maintained or be deprecated?

It will not be deprecated, simply will not be distributed along with Node.js but needs to be installed separately

aduh95 · 2025-03-19T18:58:30Z

Will corepack stay maintained or be deprecated?

It will not be deprecated, simply will not be distributed along with Node.js but needs to be installed separately

To clarify, it could be deprecated at some point, that vote does not define anything about deprecation status of Corepack, only how it is distributed. That being said, there are no plans to deprecate Corepack at the moment, and in any case, it will be maintained at least as long as Node.js 24.x is not EOL.

johnpyp · 2025-03-19T19:25:46Z

Are there any further details on the decision or discussion here?

mhdawson

LGTM

joyeecheung · 2025-03-19T23:08:16Z

Are there any further details on the decision or discussion here?

More context is in the PR that triggered the voting automation:

#1527

Which also contains some links to other older discussions either directly or indirectly...

On a side note, maybe the automation should include a link to the vote proposal PR in the actual voting PR, I had to dig this one up from the search because the proposal PR was quite old since it dragged on for ~1y. I added at least #1527 to the top of this PR in case it appears to be coming out of nowhere (although, that PR also appeared to be coming out of nowhere due to the lack of links in the OP even though it was triggered by a bunch of other discussions that I cannot dig the links up easily now because they are scattered across multiple repos IIRC)

guiyumin · 2025-03-20T04:48:46Z

will corepack be distributed as a standalone library ?

wojtekmaj · 2025-03-20T06:50:12Z

@guiyumin It already is.

davidmurdoch · 2025-03-20T16:43:40Z

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution?

"Yes, it should stay." - literally everyone that isn't one of the Participants on this call.

jasnell · 2025-03-20T16:48:18Z

Given that this issue is likely to attract a number of possibly heated comments from the ecosystem, I'm locking and limiting discussion on the thread to collaborators only.

The TSC recognizes that some subset of Node.js users will be disappointed by the outcome here... honestly there was a fair amount of disagreement among collaborators on this which is why it had to go to a TSC vote in the first place. However, the decision has been made and we're progressing along those lines.

github-actions bot and others added 3 commits March 10, 2025 09:53

Initiate vote for "Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution?"

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

11c061e

vote marco-ippolito

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

marco-ippolito Marco Ippolito

GPG key ID: 27F5E38D5B0A215F

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

7dab62a

vote ShogunPanda

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

26dd93e

targos and others added 2 commits March 10, 2025 14:09

vote from targos

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

targos Michaël Zasso

GPG key ID: 770F7A9A5AE15600

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

a4e89c4

vote from mcollina

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

mcollina Matteo Collina

GPG key ID: 818674489FBC127E

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

642d031

Create jasnell-vote

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

b324235

aduh95 mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2025

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1696

Closed

vote from aduh95

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

aduh95 Antoine du Hamel

GPG key ID: 21D900FFDB233756

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

0cb4c4d

anonrig mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2025

Open Corepack Vote #1527

Merged

RaisinTen reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33/vote.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

vote from RafaelGSS

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

RafaelGSS Rafael Gonzaga

GPG key ID: 8BEAB4DFCF555EF4

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

17fae0a

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

richardlau and others added 2 commits March 12, 2025 12:37

vote from richardlau

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

richardlau Richard Lau

GPG key ID: C43CEC45C17AB93C

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

628d719

vote from BridgeAR

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

2835bf1

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

mhdawson and others added 4 commits March 12, 2025 11:47

Create mhdawson-vote

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

92f049a

ronag vote

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

eb753b4

vote from ruyadorno

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

ruyadorno Ruy Adorno

SSH Key Fingerprint: a0Q53NsSfAvyr5XpYW4FsaImO56xcwvzQRhN/l9iWeM
Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

551a989

fixup! vote from RafaelGSS

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

RafaelGSS Rafael Gonzaga

GPG key ID: 8BEAB4DFCF555EF4

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

2b88c53

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

vote from joyeecheung

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

joyeecheung Joyee Cheung

GPG key ID: 92B78A53C8303B8D

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

21abd7a

vote from anonrig

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.

anonrig Yagiz Nizipli

SSH Key Fingerprint: zoL6tli29s3/2RBnuDKGFh+h9/BecF/dCUfIv65qoUM
Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

Loading
Loading status checks…

5eefcde

close vote and aggregate results

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature.

GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

Verified
Learn about vigilant mode

2a40ee0

aduh95 approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

BurningEnlightenment mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025

Docs on Corepack need to be expanded yarnpkg/berry#6728

Open

avivkeller mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025

Corepack won't be distributed with Node.js 25+ official distributions nodejs/nodejs.org#7555

Open

marco-ippolito approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

RafaelGSS approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

pi0 mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025

Replace corepack with an integrated solution unjs/nypm#195

Open

1 task

styfle mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025

Install packageManager (replace corepack) Schniz/fnm#1398

Open

benjamingr approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

zoontek mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025

[Feature] Alternative to Node.js experimental corepack to manage package manager version yarnpkg/berry#6443

Open

2 tasks

mhdawson approved these changes Mar 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

aduh95 merged commit dc5595e into main Mar 19, 2025

aduh95 deleted the votes/e4f313dc-6121-47bb-830d-d85f80d6ee33 branch March 19, 2025 23:47

trivikr mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2025

What is required to ensure continued development of corepack? nodejs/corepack#681

Closed

trivikr mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2025

Corepack Support actions/setup-node#531

Open

aduh95 mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2025

build: enable yarn and pnpm Corepack binaries by default nodejs/node#51886

Closed

nodejs locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 20, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1697

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1697

github-actions bot commented Mar 10, 2025 •

edited by joyeecheung

Loading

mcollina commented Mar 10, 2025

mcollina commented Mar 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mcollina commented Mar 11, 2025

anonrig commented Mar 11, 2025

aduh95 commented Mar 11, 2025

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

marco-ippolito commented Mar 17, 2025

This comment was marked as resolved.

joyeecheung commented Mar 17, 2025

mhdawson commented Mar 17, 2025

mcollina commented Mar 19, 2025

RafaelGSS commented Mar 19, 2025

github-actions bot commented Mar 19, 2025

mon-jai commented Mar 19, 2025

marco-ippolito commented Mar 19, 2025

aduh95 commented Mar 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

johnpyp commented Mar 19, 2025

mhdawson left a comment

joyeecheung commented Mar 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

guiyumin commented Mar 20, 2025

wojtekmaj commented Mar 20, 2025

davidmurdoch commented Mar 20, 2025

jasnell commented Mar 20, 2025

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1697

Should Corepack stay in the Node.js distribution? #1697

Conversation

github-actions bot commented Mar 10, 2025 • edited by joyeecheung Loading

Footnotes

mcollina commented Mar 10, 2025

mcollina commented Mar 10, 2025 • edited Loading

mcollina commented Mar 11, 2025

anonrig commented Mar 11, 2025

aduh95 commented Mar 11, 2025

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

marco-ippolito commented Mar 17, 2025

This comment was marked as resolved.

joyeecheung commented Mar 17, 2025

mhdawson commented Mar 17, 2025

mcollina commented Mar 19, 2025

RafaelGSS commented Mar 19, 2025

github-actions bot commented Mar 19, 2025

Election results

Results

Table of results

Voting data

Footnotes

mon-jai commented Mar 19, 2025

marco-ippolito commented Mar 19, 2025

aduh95 commented Mar 19, 2025 • edited Loading

johnpyp commented Mar 19, 2025

mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joyeecheung commented Mar 19, 2025 • edited Loading

guiyumin commented Mar 20, 2025

wojtekmaj commented Mar 20, 2025

davidmurdoch commented Mar 20, 2025

jasnell commented Mar 20, 2025

github-actions bot commented Mar 10, 2025 •

edited by joyeecheung

Loading

mcollina commented Mar 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

aduh95 commented Mar 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

joyeecheung commented Mar 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading