Eli
@SuperchupuDev, you'll be pleased to hear that it workses!
@jfmengels, what's your policy wrt experimental features? E.g., if `cp` was stabilized in v22, can we use hindsight and say it's ok to use assuming there were no breaking changes...
> If the feature works well in the versions I support, then I'm okay with using them if they stabilized later. 👍 (#120 should be easy-peasy then!) > I would...
That this fails is good, it's catching that we now need #190.
Great, more fun! Something else must've dropped node 14- in the whole glob fiasco. Welp. Whadawedonow?
Oh, just saw this! npm/npm-pick-manifest#33 fixes a longstanding bug in npm, so engines-based resolution is a thing, just like it should be. Therefore, we can revert all of these engines...
I've fixed this locally (by reverting f0894b30a252e7db739546efa17f2ded174d167a from #190), but I need to split the giant branch into reviewable PRs.
Note: I did fix this, but I don't want to push it till #256 gets merged b/c my branches are complicated enough as-is.
> Interesting "going overboard" commit 😄 Function currying! (sort of) 😆 Yeah, that's the sort of thing I enjoy. Is it going to be needed, ever? No. Is it fun?...
Pingy ping :) Rebased this one, @jfmengels Oh, well I guess there've been some more, give me a minute.