-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
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
One monolithic repo #956
Comments
Is there a particular advantage you think this will give? note that semantic release doesn't support doing different versions for packages (semantic-release/semantic-release#193) and I don't think it makes sense for all these packages to go through the same versions |
I was thinking, there would be just one package ( The advantage is faster development cycle, less management. |
Right, but that could make it harder to do some changes and new majors (e.g. if we want do a breaking change to the I'm not saying we definitely shouldn't do it, but it feels like we're just trading one set of problems for another set of similar size rather than actually eliminating the total 😅 I tend to use |
You are right. My original impetus was to remove I guess the goal is not to take the code as-is from those packages and simply plunk it into For example, the most "necessary" part from const { vol } = memfs();
vol.addReadOnlyLayerAtPath('/real-fs', require('fs'));
vol.addEventListener('read', event => {
if (event.filename === '/my-file') {
event.preventDefault();
// ...
}
}); Essentially, |
For the size of the code base, I'm not worried about including extra modules. I'm more interested in having integrated docs, types, issues, and tests for using them together. As a user, I think this is a good idea. |
Vendor necessary code from upstream dependencies. Consolidate all code in one
memfs
repo and discontinue auxiliary packages:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: