Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 2, 2023. It is now read-only.

Lets document the current state of Modules in Node.js #402

Description

@MylesBorins

Folks from the TSC need to ramp up on the current state of our implementation, decisions we've made, in progress features, and areas we lack consensus. While we do have https://github.com/nodejs/modules/blob/master/doc/plan-for-new-modules-implementation.md I don't think it is the best place for someone to get a holistic view of where we are at.

Made a google doc to collect our ideas.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rgXyCQP6S694MzkXla8rbRwqCSY9Eb2lFIOgLZoEw5k/edit?usp=sharing

FWIW we could turn this into another blog when we unflag... might not be a bad idea.

Activity

  1. MylesBorins commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @MylesBorins
    ContributorAuthor

    /cc @nodejs/tsc

  2. ljharb commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @ljharb
    SponsorMember

    Ideally this will mostly be a completely neutral article, but where there are points of disagreement, it'd be great to have a kind of "editorial paragraph" for each side explaining the positions.

  3. MylesBorins commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @MylesBorins
    ContributorAuthor

    @ljharb are you ok with keeping disagreements / editorialization scoped to the issue of dual-mode packages and the specifier hazard? I'd like too avoid re litigating other parts of the implementation

  4. ljharb commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @ljharb
    SponsorMember

    I would also hope to minimize the points of public disagreement - we don't want to have this document appear incohesive - but I think it's too early to commit to that until the document is more fleshed out.

  5. GeoffreyBooth commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @GeoffreyBooth
    Member

    I would also hope to minimize the points of public disagreement - we don’t want to have this document appear incohesive - but I think it’s too early to commit to that until the document is more fleshed out.

    @ljharb you’re the one who requested TSC review. What would you potentially want them to review beyond the hazard / dual package divergent specifiers?

  6. ljharb commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @ljharb
    SponsorMember

    To properly ramp up, they'd need maximum context - including trying to understand where all our perspectives come from. This involves more than just the decisions at hand.

  7. GeoffreyBooth commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @GeoffreyBooth
    Member

    What would you potentially want them to review beyond the hazard / dual package divergent specifiers?

  8. ljharb commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @ljharb
    SponsorMember

    Not sure yet; I'll let you know as the document fleshes out :-)

  9. GeoffreyBooth commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @GeoffreyBooth
    Member

    The state of modules is https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html. The document would basically just be that, plus whatever points of disagreement we have.

    So if you don’t have any others, we can point them to those docs and write a section about the hazard / dual package divergent specifiers, and that’s it.

    I don’t think the TSC wants to be pulled in to referee any disagreements we may have. They already kicked the @/~ decision back to us. We should only involve them for major issues that might affect the public perception of Node.

  10. ljharb commented on Oct 16, 2019

    @ljharb
    SponsorMember

    I'm not suggesting they'd change already-decided things - but it's still important for them to know the context.

  11. MylesBorins commented on Oct 21, 2019

    @MylesBorins
    ContributorAuthor

    Shared with the TSC. We can revisit later if we want to turn this into some sort of blog post.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions