Thanks for the responses! It seems folks agree on
a) openwhisk to be in the name and
b) leverage one of the existing npm scopes @openwhisk or @apache-openwhisk
Based on that I would propose to go with suggestion 3:
@openwhisk/wskdebug
I will create a PR.
And then ask for an initial release (keeping the version number to avoid
confusion), plus vote.
Agree with Carlos, this must follow ASF release process and then push to npm is
just one convenience "mirror" from the ASF perspective. I have seen this
practiced well with https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-client-js
(Although not for your normal npm developer, they will be _very_ confused if
something is not on npmjs.org :-) Just saying.)
Thanks,
Alex
________________________________
From: Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 09:26
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org <dev@openwhisk.apache.org>
Subject: Re: wskdebug: npm module name?
My two cents:
Publishing to npm would be a community thing as a convenience not an official
distribution guaranteeing the bytes for a third party service (ie npmjs.org)
No need to vote on the npmjs.org published, vote should already happened for
the source code and the tgz source code published.
Just setup some scripting that publishes the already voted tgz source to
npmjs.org server.
- Carlos Santana
@csantanapr
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 11:43 AM, David P Grove <gro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote on 02/28/2020
> 01:44:51 AM:
>>
>>> We own both the @openwhisk and @apache-openwhisk organizations, so
>>> we could choose to use either as a scope for this new package.
>>
>> I did not see any @openwhisk or @apache-openwhisk scopes on npm (no
>> results for e.g. [1]). Which are you referring to?
>
> We have not published a package to either one of these scopes, but the
> organizations already exist and are owned by the PMC's "openwhisk-bot"
> functional id. The existence of the org claims the scope.
>
> We should be able to publish a package to either one of those scopes at any
> time without additional setup (after we go through the usual voting process
> to actually have content to put there).
>
> --dave
