-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should Glamorous be a dependency rather than peerDependency #177
Comments
I think it's appropriate to use peer dependencies when you are stating:
As far as I'm aware, glamor does not work if you have multiple instances loaded in the browser, so I think it's safe to assume multiple instances of Glamorous could also cause issues. As such, I think it's preferable to keep it in peer dependencies. On the other hand, if we were to switch to another CSSinJS solution such as styled-components, I understand the desire to have peer projects automatically update, however if a core change like this was made I would expect to update the major version number and would want peer projects to be aware of the change. |
Both Atlassian AtlasKit and Auth0 Cosmos have styled-components as a dependency rather than peerDependency https://www.npmjs.com/package/auth0-cosmos?activeTab=dependencies Although the styled-components FAQ specifically says to use peerDependencies:
|
Issue raised against AtlasKit here https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/atlaskit-mk-2/issues/24/styled-components-should-be-a-peer |
Closing - we no longer use glamorous, and have had no reported problems using peerDependencies |
This ticket is to discuss potentially moving Glamorous from peerDependencies to dependencies.
This was initially raised on Slack by @lennym:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: