Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(NODE-6590): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and include binding.gyp in the package #47

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 2, 2024

Conversation

baileympearson
Copy link
Contributor

Description

What is changing?

Is there new documentation needed for these changes?

What is the motivation for this change?

Double check the following

  • Ran npm run format:js && npm run format:rs script
  • Self-review completed using the steps outlined here
  • PR title follows the correct format: type(NODE-xxxx)[!]: description
    • Example: feat(NODE-1234)!: rewriting everything in coffeescript
  • Changes are covered by tests
  • New TODOs have a related JIRA ticket

@baileympearson baileympearson changed the title fix(NODE-6572): misc fixes from 2.0.0-alpha.0 fix(NODE-6572): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and inclue binding.gyp in the package Dec 2, 2024
@baileympearson baileympearson changed the title fix(NODE-6572): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and inclue binding.gyp in the package fix(NODE-6590): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and inclue binding.gyp in the package Dec 2, 2024
@baileympearson baileympearson changed the title fix(NODE-6590): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and inclue binding.gyp in the package fix(NODE-6590): specify correct entrypoint in package.json and include binding.gyp in the package Dec 2, 2024
@nbbeeken nbbeeken merged commit f562b59 into main Dec 2, 2024
40 checks passed
@nbbeeken nbbeeken deleted the misc-fixes branch December 2, 2024 21:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants