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

Remove bower support #1441

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 26, 2016
Merged

Remove bower support #1441

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 26, 2016

Conversation

sebmck
Copy link
Contributor

@sebmck sebmck commented Oct 25, 2016

Bower support isn't something we document or support very well. We should just get rid of it since it has a lot of issues. Bower is on it's way out and we shouldn't be supporting it. If you want to continue to use Bower then just use it's CLI. We initially had support for it to support Polymer but since they're migrating entirely to npm there's not much use.

We should encourage users to migrate to npm too and bring over the features they like from Bower to Yarn (such as flat install which we already have and other unimplemented features like svn support etc).

Copy link
Member

@bestander bestander left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense, we need to focus on more cohesive solution rather than spread

@FredKSchott
Copy link
Contributor

FredKSchott commented Oct 25, 2016

fwiw, our (Polymer's) immediate plans are to add support for npm (via yarn) as well as bower.

But because we don't need any special install-time logic anymore, we are fine using bower to install for bower-style packages & yarn to install for npm-style packages. In fact, if web component authors publish to both registries (and keeping seperate bower.json & package.json files in our repos) then we will probably be the most likely to run into all of these yarn+bower bugs 💩

So +1 from me, I think focusing entirely on the npm use-case makes the most sense for yarn's future.

@sebmck sebmck merged commit af9d80c into master Oct 26, 2016
@sebmck sebmck deleted the remove-bower branch October 26, 2016 15:54
@sheerun
Copy link
Contributor

sheerun commented Oct 26, 2016

...

@samccone
Copy link
Member

@sheerun If you are still interested in working on adding bower support this can be made possible again.
The current decision was based on the lack of resources to work on this and the lackluster experience that yarn provided with bower.

There are some other constraints as well, but I think we can figure out a way to make this work!

@csvan
Copy link

csvan commented Oct 27, 2016

I honestly think this was a great thing to do, not only for Yarn but for the community at large. Bower is not only dying, it cannot die soon enough. This would resolve a plethora of issues and save a ton of resources around double package maintenance, inconsistencies etc.

@samccone
Copy link
Member

The solution here that @kittens and I talked about is to add the missing features that prevent a user from being able to mv bower.json package.json and running yarn install

Please open issues around these kind of problems when you run into them.

I am going to lock this thread now.

Thanks everyone.

@yarnpkg yarnpkg locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 27, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants