Record decisions for update to the repository structure ahead of v5 #24
Conversation
|
|
||
| ### Removing built package files from versioning | ||
|
|
||
| - We could also have built the package to a separate folder that's not versioned (for ex. `govuk-frontend-local-build`) to ensure we consume the built files without impacting `package`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@colinrotherham @36degrees Do any of you remember why we left that one aside or was it just to avoid the clunkyness of building the same thing in two places with slightly different names?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah by replacing the real govuk-frontend in the workspace with the fake one we'd lose:
- Dependency resolution testing
- Package exports testing
- Dependabot updates
- ESLint import/export/publishing checks
Plus we'd end up replicating things in two package.json files
Probably more
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll update to try and reflect that 😄
| - We could also have built the package to a separate folder that's not versioned (for ex. `govuk-frontend-local-build`) to ensure we consume the built files without impacting `package`. | |
| - We could also have built the package to a separate folder that's not versioned (for ex. `govuk-frontend-local-build`) to ensure we consume the built files without impacting `package`. We'd have to duplicate efforts to maintain two `package.json` files and lose testing our dependency resolution, package exports, as well as complicate the linting and Dependabot updates. |
@colinrotherham How does that sound?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The contents is good, but it's under the Removing built package… heading
The suggestion for govuk-frontend-local-build was the opposite, keeping the built package
Not a blocker for me, but maybe its own heading as another alternative we discussed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was hoping the heading being under ## Alternatives considered would clarify that it's the alternatives of Removing built package that are listed. It might be that Regrouping source and built package... only having one alternative makes things a little confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for writing this up so comprehensively @romaricpascal 🖊️
Have added a few slightly nitpicky comments with suggestions to try and improve clarity, but this is looking great.
romaricpascal
changed the title
romaricpascal
force-pushed
the
repository-organisation-v5
branch
from
0fa17a4 to
1048c82
Compare
|
I think that last commit adressed all the remarks (besides the one about the heading within Alternatives considered, not quite sure what to do to clarify. I think the issue is with this decision containing multiple smaller decisions rather than be a unique one). |
romaricpascal
force-pushed
the
repository-organisation-v5
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3acac4f to
9c85982
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ | |||
| # Decision Record Title | |||
|
|
|||
| Update our repository structure to prepare v5 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Update our repository structure to prepare v5 | |
| Update our repository structure to prepare for v5 |
|
As discussed in dev catch up, the repo structure has diverged a little from what was in our initial decision record, so this needs updating with the latest changes. Adding this to the board so we remember to come back and merge this! |
|
Looks good to go for me, thanks for the edits (but I can't approve as I'm the creator of the PR) 😊 |
36degrees
force-pushed
the
repository-organisation-v5
branch
from
ecb6ea0 to
caf2c55
Compare
Prompted by alphagov/govuk-frontend#3491 and alphagov/govuk-frontend#3498, we've had discussions to clarify which updates to our repository organisation were necessary ahead of v5. This PR adds the recording of the decisions we came to.