chore: remove obsolete comment #11953
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/27286/ |
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 22a2541:
|
kaicataldo
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2020
existentialism
added
the
PR: Internal 🏠
github-actions
bot
added
the
outdated
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This simply removes a comment that has become obsolete. The issue referenced in the comment is loganfsmyth/babel-plugin-transform-decorators-legacy#9 and the comment was first introduced in loganfsmyth/babel-plugin-transform-decorators-legacy@e0a1673 (referenced in the issue). The "hack" has since been reverted but the comment was not removed, thus causing confusion for anyone (at least me 😄) looking at the code (and the referenced issue is not easy to find because it's actually in an obsolete repo where this code was moved from).