Closed kristoforsalmin closed 4 years ago
@racse1 no, we should stick to one or the other.
I noticed this as well. I think it'd be simpler to stick with package-lock.json
βthere's no reference in the docs of using Yarn to install.
@frekyll I agree. Even though Yarn is pretty popular, it's better to stick to the official package manager in my opinion.
Hi @simonsmith @giuseppeg, I'd like to hear from you guys what you think, so we're completely on the same page π
Again, I'd personally go with npm (it's not that slow nowadays), but nevertheless let's decide together and then I'll need to prepare a few pull requests in order to close this one.
Seeing as we use npm
in all of the scripts we should probably settle on package-lock.json
. I do prefer yarn
though. Maybe if we action the monorepo change we can move to Yarn then
is it problematic to have both?
is it problematic to have both?
I would say so. Unnecessary and confusing to the user. I agree we should stick with package-lock and consider yarn if do a big migration.
Hi guys, do you think it makes sense to fix the lock files at the moment? On the one hand we're about to go monorepo where the issue will be automatically resolved, but on the other hand it might take a while, so maybe we should actually fix them anyway for the sake of consistency/maintainability. What do you think?
@racse1 Is it causing any issues at the moment?
@simonsmith I don't think so π Just a bit inconvenient, I guess.
I thought it'd be nice to finally close this one either by switching to package-lock.json
everywhere or by just closing the issue as it'll be fixed with monorepo approach anyway...
Closing this one as it seems to be fixed now π
Hello everyone,
Some repos currently have
yarn.lock
, others havepackage-lock.json
. Should we keep both of them in order to support npm and Yarn at the same time?Thanks