Adopt pnpm as a package manager for this Repository #5327
Description
Activity
My initial thought is that what is most important is how easy it is to contribute a change to the website. I'm less worried about things taking a bit longer in our CI.
Are there any significant benefits to people submitting a PR in terms of the overall time that will take them? If not I think avoiding people having to do an additional install may not be worth it.
Reacted by Tobias Nießen, Michael Esteban, Jordan Harband and Claudio WunderThat is a great argument. And I'm in favour of it. If ultimately what matters is DX, adding another layer of dependency that requires another install on the userland can be discouraging and add extra debugging/issues to the contribution cycle towards this repository.
And a few seconds of CI time is not a big deal. Again the idea of adopting
pnpmhas its pros and cons.And truth be said, npm is more than sufficient, and I see no issues with keeping it at the time of writing this. (NPM is darn great).
I am converting this into an issue, since, hmm. This isn't really an "issue/fr" but an open discussion.
- locked and limited conversation to collaborators
on Apr 27, 2023
Hey, you all 👋 after doing some experimentation, I wanted to ask the team (cc @nodejs/website) what you think about adopting
pnpmas the package manager for this repository.Some of the key caveats/benefits I've noticed:
npxnode_modulesand cache footprint (making the GitHub Actions cache storage have more space) (Around 70% less footprint)Some of the disadvantages:
CorepackpnpmI also want the opinion of the @nodejs/build team and the TSC @nodejs/tsc as I want to ensure that this change is not controversial nor conflicting with any of our bylaws and/or creates an adverse affect on the "npm" package manager (as if this repository does any endorsement to
pnpmovernpmwhich is not the case).