All committers have signed the CLA.

Thanks a lot @klablink! Can you please sign the CLA, so that we can proceed on this?

Thanks a lot @klablink! Can you please sign the CLA, so that we can proceed on this?

Hi @StorytellerCZ, I have signed the CLA now.

I have completed the migration of all packages, tell me if there is anything to change.

@StorytellerCZ @jankapunkt The removal of the UI package makes the iron-router package incompatible. I cannot find it in the community-managed packages, so in my opinion it should be added. What do you think?

The removal of the UI package makes the iron-router package incompatible

This is a sign that iron router has to be updated and that there is lots of legacy code in it and maybe even a few parts that could be vulnerable (afaik iron router can be used on the server, too, right!?)

The removal of the UI package makes the iron-router package incompatible

This is a sign that iron router has to be updated and that there is lots of legacy code in it and maybe even a few parts that could be vulnerable (afaik iron router can be used on the server, too, right!?)

Right, I think many projects started with Meteor in version 0.x still use this package. We use it more client-side, server-side we use express.

@klablink can you please split this PR into smaller ones by packages, so that we can review this more efficiently. Thank you!

@klablink can you please split this PR into smaller ones by packages, so that we can review this more efficiently. Thank you!

Hi @StorytellerCZ I can try but it is not easy because some changes are across packages.

@StorytellerCZ I checked the possibility of splitting PR. Unfortunately, the packages are strongly interconnected, the modification of a construct implies the revision of all references. For example, the transformation of Blaze objects into ES6 classes involves the use of the new clause in the linked sources. Now, how can we proceed to simplify the verification task?

Alternatively we could split reviews between @StorytellerCZ , somebody else and me?

I think we need to split lint fixes from this PR. There area lot of files where the only change is that it has been linted. That should go into a separate PR, we merge that and that should reduce the number of files that need to be reviewed.

Yes @StorytellerCZ good point. The biggest changes, apart from linting, are:

• classes
• arrow functions
• template literals

the rest is mostly linting.

Lets split this up, and get this in asap.