kredits/contracts
9
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 21 Pull Requests Actions Projects 1 Releases 8 Activity

WIP: Use yarn instead of npm #98

Closed
fsmanuel wants to merge 1 commits from chore/yarn into master
pull from: chore/yarn
merge into: :master
Conversation 6 Commits 1 Files Changed 14
+40829 -71735
fsmanuel commented 2019-04-12 22:32:55 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

Using yarn fixed my setup problems.
In the beginning I had a problem with a web3 package but this error is somehow gone, now.
Can someone test if it works for you as well?

Using yarn fixed my setup problems. In the beginning I had a problem with a web3 package but this error is somehow gone, now. Can someone test if it works for you as well?
bumi (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-04-13 07:13:28 +00:00
bumi (Migrated from github.com) left a comment
Copy Link
Copy Source

I never really looked into yarn and never understood why it exists. it always felt like throwing more code on a problem instead of fixing the problem... but as said I have no idea :D

but it looks good to me and I am happy that it solves an issue for you.
I guess then one can even use both?

I never really looked into yarn and never understood why it exists. it always felt like throwing more code on a problem instead of fixing the problem... but as said I have no idea :D but it looks good to me and I am happy that it solves an issue for you. I guess then one can even use both?
fsmanuel commented 2019-04-13 10:21:45 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

It has some historical reasons why yarn exists. npm2 installed all the packages nested aka the same package got installed multiple times. Yarn on the other hand flattend the dependencies and did a much better job at version resolution. It also installed the packages in parallel and was much faster. Since then npm3 also flattend the dependencies but is still very slow. The yarn lock file is much more stable and doesn't change every time. So I prefer yarn over npm for package management...

It has some historical reasons why yarn exists. npm2 installed all the packages nested aka the same package got installed multiple times. Yarn on the other hand flattend the dependencies and did a much better job at version resolution. It also installed the packages in parallel and was much faster. Since then npm3 also flattend the dependencies but is still very slow. The yarn lock file is much more stable and doesn't change every time. So I prefer yarn over npm for package management...
bumi commented 2019-04-13 10:39:49 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

ok, I see.. but npm works as it does currently.. so it is not a breaking change, is it?

ok, I see.. but `npm` works as it does currently.. so it is not a breaking change, is it?
raucao commented 2019-04-13 11:29:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

Except for the difference in lockfiles, npm over time introduced pretty much any and all benefits that yarn ever had over npm afaik. I think our code should definitely support being used with yarn, but I'd propose to keep npm as the default, simply because it is the de-facto standard package manager for JavaScript, and yarn is just an alternative client for npm's registry.

Except for the difference in lockfiles, npm over time introduced pretty much any and all benefits that yarn ever had over npm afaik. I think our code should definitely support being used with yarn, but I'd propose to keep npm as the default, simply because it is the de-facto standard package manager for JavaScript, and yarn is just an alternative client for npm's registry.
fsmanuel commented 2019-04-13 13:53:27 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

Alright! I'll rebase and readd the package-lock files so we can use both.

Alright! I'll rebase and readd the package-lock files so we can use both.
fsmanuel commented 2019-04-15 15:37:39 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link
Copy Source

Superseded by #102

Superseded by #102

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
This pull request is marked as a work in progress.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
bumi
Labels
Clear labels
good first issue
Good for newcomers
 ipfs
rsk
scaling
bug
Something is not working
 dev environment
Config, builds, CI, deployment, etc.
 docs
Documentation
 duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
 enhancement
Improving existing functionality
 feature
New functionality
 idea
Something to consider
 invalid
Not a bug
 kredits-1
Small contribution
 kredits-2
Medium contribution
 kredits-3
Large contribution
 question
Looking for an answer
release
major
release
minor
release
patch
security
All your base are belong to us
 ui/ux
User interface, process design, etc.
 wontfix
This won't be fixed
No labels
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No projects
Assignees
Clear assignees
bkero (bkero) bumi (bumi) fsmanuel (fsmanuel) galfert (galfert) greg (Greg) haythem (haythem) hueso (hueso) raucao (Râu Cao) slvrbckt (Nick Jennings)
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: kredits/contracts#98