cc @wooorm @remcohaszing @ChristianMurphy

Should I bump unified's (patch?) version number too, so the change in typing doesn't affect packages depending on the old system?

Btw @ChristianMurphy @wooorm I'm working through the main unified packages to update @types/unist to the latest version. Because it is (technically) a breaking change, updating forces us to make sure we aren't expecting types in the old format, and for going forwards.

I've done a few repos (for the most part, the code doesn't need changing, just the dependencies), but I want to check with you both that I'm doing the correct thing before I go ahead with the others.

Btw @ChristianMurphy @wooorm I'm working through the main unified packages to update @types/unist to the latest version. Because it is (technically) a breaking change, updating forces us to make sure we aren't expecting types in the old format, and for going forwards.

I've done a few repos (for the most part, the code doesn't need changing, just the dependencies), but I want to check with you both that I'm doing the correct thing before I go ahead with the others.

Thanks @GuiltyDolphin!
In general it is worth checking, looking for breaking changes.
We try to keep version ranges wide, for example ^2.0.0 rather than ^2.1.3 for example.
Which means not many repos will need their package.json updated, but a few may need their test suite or typings adjusted.

Alright! I'll keep checking through then, but without updating version numbers and just make sure that typings are okay for the latest version of @types/unist. It looks like we're mostly okay though, not too many packages are making assumptions about extra keys on Node. 😄