Closed zeke closed 5 years ago
It seems like the green highlighting is already doing a good job of pointing out the direct dependencies vs. indirect ones. I don't think there's much room in the interface to add npm ls
style output unless we want to change the dependency list from the succint "camelcase, chalk + 137 more" to something that takes many lines.
Would a --direct
flag help you? It could list only maintainers and organizations responsible for packages you directly depend on.
Hey @feross! Thanks for the reply. I think you're right that the current output does a good job of differentiating direct vs transitive deps. The color is enough. I also think the descending sorting of authors by the number of dependencies is really helpful for determining which authors are most deserving of our support.
Apologies for the rambling stream-of-consciousness issue! Closing.
No worries! I always love to read the thoughtful issues you open β€οΈ
I'm looking at the output of
thanks
and trying to decide how to allocate monetary donations to the individuals, teams, and organizations on the list:thanks
already highlights the direct dependencies (displayed here in green) which is pretty helpful:Looking at the output of
thanks
, I recognize many of the package names because I explicitly installed them. But others I don't recognize by name. For example:I didn't know we were using
preact
!?Ah I see it's a dependency of our Algolia search client. Knowing where that dependency came from is useful.
I'm wondering if there's a way that
thanks
could displaynpm ls
-style hierarchy in its output.Some part of me wants to know who's maintaining our more direct dependencies. That seems more personal to me. Like one degree of separation. But maybe the degree of separation doesn't actually matter? Should all dependencies, no matter how many levels deep, be treated with equal regard when it comes to dividing and disbursing "thanks"? π€