Skip to content
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

Discovery: what would it take to export components as individual node packages #1149

Closed
2 tasks
caw310 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks

Comments

@caw310
Copy link
Contributor

caw310 commented Nov 17, 2021

This is discovery issue to look into what it would take to export components as individual node packages.

Notes from initiative where this originated
Exporting components as node packages individually

  • instead of entire DS being one package, the components individually could be exported/imported when a team uses it

  • when a change to DS, update is applied across the board to even teams who don't use it.

  • if export components individually, updating is controlled by teams using the component.

  • Problem solving: risk inherent in updating the DS versions in application repos without application teams having knowledge and making sure apps are working properly before going to prod

  • Research quantifiable way of the impact of this initiative

  • Define the impact and possible measurement / metric this change would have

@k80bowman k80bowman changed the title Discovery: what work Exporting components as individual node packages Discovery: what would it take to export components as individual node packages Nov 29, 2021
@bkjohnson bkjohnson transferred this issue from department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team Aug 25, 2022
@caw310
Copy link
Contributor Author

caw310 commented Jul 28, 2023

@Andrew565 @jamigibbs - can we close this or do we want to do this still for the upgrade?

@jamigibbs
Copy link
Contributor

This is still relevant. It's also kind of related to #1954

@micahchiang
Copy link
Contributor

Gonna close this one in favor of #1954 since they are pretty similar and this one is kind of old =\

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants