Conversation
b0e6374 to
b330b18
Compare
|
Zach and I discussed this briefly offline so I'll share the reservations I have here as well. The major problem I see with this is that we have to ship (== release to npm) all packages in the release group when we release. Thus, everything that's not private gets published to npm. We already publish a bunch of "junk packages" that customers don't use or need, or "junk versions" that contain 0 changes except a version bump. I'd prefer to keep separate stuff that doesn't need to publish publicly/frequently. We may eventually support releasing/version bumping only a portion of a pnpm workspace but today we don't. |
|
This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has had no activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 8 days of this comment. Thank you for your contributions to Fluid Framework! |
Description
It is painful to share code across R11s, Gitrest, and Historian due to the package and release group structure. This leads to a lot of code duplication and hacky workarounds, as well as a slower development cycle.
Breaking Changes
Reviewer Guidance
I'm sure that I missed some aspects of this move that are important. Questions I know I was fuzzy on are:
server-gitrestandserver-historianpipelines?server/routerliciousto something better now that it includesrouterlicious,tinylicious,historian, andgitrest?server/routerlicious/kubernetes?gitrest,gitrest-base,historian, andhistorian-basewill be published publicly in NPM with the same versions as R11s packages? Is that a problem or OK?