Open Corepack Vote #1527
Open Corepack Vote #1527
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Ruy Adorno <[email protected]>
|
Does the presence of this vote mean the PMWG has a deadline for our goals and corresponding proposal docs? I assume we would want to have a clear picture of our intended future goals before we make changes to the status quo, but maybe y'all are seeing it differently. |
|
The idea is to start a vote but I don’t think we have a timeline for the vote. From the summit some ideas were proposed:
I think for those who are not yet decided, it would be valuable to have more information before they cast their vote. But we should not stall this forever either, so a vote will happen soonish. |
How is the survey distributed? |
Thanks for the context @joyeecheung! We will work to get that asap. We have good progress happening today here already: nodejs/package-maintenance#597
More details here, including us working out the questions we want to ask in this regard. nodejs/next-10#261 |
I don't think this vote affects any potential future goals. IMHO, this vote can happen independently of PMWG's work. I don't see how they are strictly related. Unless the goals of the PMWG match the corepack's implementation exactly. |
Based on the collab summit and recent discussions, I think we might have consensus that we want to revise https://nodejs.org/en/download to prioritize the application developer use case, recommending installation via a version manager as the default method (see also nodejs/package-maintenance#591). It would probably be a technical necessity for that version manager to be installed separately from Node, which would mean that the default tab for the download page would be something like a list of instructions where there are separate installation steps for the version manager and then for Node. Once we have that, it follows that the package manager version manager (Corepack) would be one of those installation steps. In this approach, Corepack would be unbundled from Node (and therefore not managed by whatever version manager controls the Node distribution) but still provided for users as part of installation. |
Co-authored-by: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
| - Status Quo: keep distributing `corepack` with Node.js, disabled by default, exactly as it is today. | ||
| - Keep distributing `corepack` with Node.js, enabling `yarn` and `pnpm` by default. | ||
| - Stop distributing `corepack` with Node.js. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let’s be clear that enabling Yarn and pnpm means creating executables for them.
| - Status Quo: keep distributing `corepack` with Node.js, disabled by default, exactly as it is today. | |
| - Keep distributing `corepack` with Node.js, enabling `yarn` and `pnpm` by default. | |
| - Stop distributing `corepack` with Node.js. | |
| - Status Quo: keep distributing Corepack with Node.js, disabled by default, exactly as it is today. | |
| - Keep distributing Corepack with Node.js and include in the Node.js distribution `yarn` and `pnpm` executables that run Corepack to download and run Yarn and pnpm. | |
| - Stop distributing Corepack with Node.js. |
| The objective of the vote is to determine a basic question: do we continue bundling | ||
| the corepack binary with Node.js or not, and if so, do we enable bundling jumper | ||
| binaries for its supported package managers (such as yarn and pnpm) by default or not. | ||
| There are additional questions to resolve that will be handled separately. | ||
| # 6. Optionally, insert a brief introduction for the vote PR, in the markdown format. | ||
| prBody: | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| prBody: | | |
| prBody: | | |
| There are several different visions being worked out about the future distribution | |
| strategy of package managers and Node.js itself. Some of them involve a bundled | |
| corepack, some of them need a standalone corepack, some of them do not involve | |
| corepack. We still have not decided on which vision we want. This vote is | |
| specifically about whether we should continue bundling corepack before we | |
| decide on the vision of our distribution strategy. It is separate from whether | |
| corepack should eventually stay in the organization or be part of the | |
| future of Node.js, as those are still unclear until we decide about our vision | |
| in the distribution strategy. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively we can just decide what vision we want, and presumably based on that this vote won’t be necessary.
|
Converting to draft because the tool is not able to handle two open votes at once, and in the last TSC meeting there was consensus about giving more time to the package maintenance team before taking a decision. |
@nodejs/tsc ... as discussed on this TSC call today. Initiate a formal vote on the corepack discussion