John-David Dalton

@ljharb > Also worth noting: maintaining support for older nodes, even EOL'd ones, ensures that those stuck on those node versions have a smooth upgrade path. I thought part of...

@ljharb > but just because that's the goal doesn't mean users universally do that. 0.10 is EOL There's got to be a cut off at some time and I think...

@ljharb > I'm arguing that it's most beneficial to the users to support as far back as possible, Naw, that's impractical and unrealistic. > In other words, support for a...

@ljharb > CI runs the tests on 0.10 just as easily as 0.12. There certainly may come a time when there's a cost - and that is the time to...

@ljharb > It runs in parallel and adds to travis-ci's costs, not the maintainers'. It's not that simple. Test fails can hold up PRs, complicating contributions, and they do incur...

@Daniel15 > Older versions could have a lower level of support and just run nightly tests rather than having them run as part of every commit / pull request. Sounds...

@ljharb > if you retain support by default, then let me know when you run into a problem maintaining support for an "old" version and I'll be happy to contribute...

@nathanhammond > npm didn't drop support for 0.8 until June of this year. I don't think yarn should necessarily follow npm's path. > this RFC proposes supporting this for one...

🤯! Thank you!

Rock! Thank you again @Munter!