Revert "repl,util: insert carriage returns in output"

[evanlucas]

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

repl,util

Description of change

This reverts commit fce4b98.

This was a breaking change and should have been marked semver-major.

Ref: #8028
Related: hapijs/code#81
Related: #8138

[Fishrock123]

LGTM, I was kinda worried about it.

[Fishrock123]

Marking the original PR as major.

[yorkie]

LGTM and I think we should also mention @maxrimue, who opened #8138, to know this reverting.

[addaleax]

LGTM and I am still a bit uncomfortable about how there was never any actual reason for the change provided in the first place, other than “it fixed something in one of my projects”.

[maxrimue]

This is great, I rather consider this a major change as well. Thanks everyone!

[jasnell]

What did this break? Why does it need to be reverted? The PR can be marked semver-major after it landed.

[cjihrig]

@jasnell it breaks anything that relies on output only containing \n, but now contains the additional \r. See hapijs/code#82 for example.

[addaleax]

Also, the tests for yargs broke (#8138) and the PR (#8028) has been labelled as semver-major today.

[evanlucas]

@jasnell look at the two related links in the OP for what it broke.

This changed the output of util.format()

[jasnell]

Ok, so it did land in v6 .. that's unfortunate. Wouldn't we only revert it in v6 then? Or is this enough of a break that we don't want it in master either?

[evanlucas]

I opened the PR on master because I agree with @addaleax's comment:

LGTM and I am still a bit uncomfortable about how there was never any actual reason for the change provided in the first place, other than “it fixed something in one of my projects”.

I feel like we need better justification to a pretty large breaking change like this

[jasnell]

Works for me. Would you mind adding a bit more of that justification to the commit message?

[mscdex]

FWIW I didn't recall seeing util.format() changed in the original PR, the intention was to only change repl.js.

[addaleax]

I would have read #7954 (comment) as a request to change it for util.inspect/util.format, too.

[evanlucas]

Closing this one as #8143 is open for master.