Pietro Marchini

Hey @viky-01, it's great that you want to contribute, and you're definitely welcome to work on this issue too :) Just one thing: I'm already working on this, as mentioned...

Hey @ChALkeR, as per documentation the latest versions are excluding from the coverage the matching test files: "By default all the matching test files are excluded from the coverage report....

Sorry @ChALkeR, I think I didn’t express myself clearly. You're right about the match pattern. At the moment, we're excluding, by default, everything that matches the inclusion patterns, which may...

> I think this is a bug. Hey @targos, IMHO, I think it's working as expected, even though the documentation could be more detailed. Rather than a bug, I think...

> I would have expected this to exclude the exact same files that are matched by node --test @ChALkeR if I'm not mistaken we discussed this in another issue (which...

> There are large swaths of code that appear to mostly be just moved. Is it possible to re-organise the "new" to minimise the diff? That would help a lot...

@JakobJingleheimer I tried to minimise the diff, but the result is almost the same. The point of this refactor is to just move the logic, reducing the complexity of the...

Hey @romainmenke , thanks for your contribution! As a first-time contributor, I suggest you take a look at https://github.com/nodejs/core-validate-commit. Regarding the content of the PR: I think that, as the...

>Happy to look at this, but unsure how to proceed. Do you mean that I should not have commit messages in the default git revert style? Sorry, I only just...

I think we should avoid reverting this feature and instead explore an idea that aligns with the current direction: the addition of a `step` method similar to what Deno provides....