+1 -- Diogo Resende
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 at 2:42 , Outsider (JeongHoon Byun) wrote: > +1 > i think it's necessary policy for module quality not just module count. > and it's reasonable to me. > > node comunity has became pretty big. > so commiters can't communicate with each module authors. > doing so waste time too much and positive result will be very low. > > > 2012년 12월 15일 토요일에 Isaac Schlueter님이 작성: > > There's no need for drama, you're right. But you make an important > > point: the correct answer is "Oh, sorry about that, sure, it's all > > yours." > > > > The problem is that sometimes the response is "No, I'm planning on > > releasing something there some day, so you can't have it." The > > relevant difference is that planned modules don't exist. > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Chris O'Hara <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's worth adding that you should reach out to the author first if you > > > find > > > such a package in npm. There's a good chance that they're not "squatting" > > > the name intentionally - they probably just started a project excitedly > > > and > > > didn't push as fast as they'd hoped. > > > > > > I had a "dynamo" and "task" in npm without little or no code. I was > > > contacted by jed who had a dynamo client ready to go and tkellen who > > > wanted > > > task for a gruntjs related project. - in both cases I gave up the names. > > > > > > No drama, no need call anyone a squatter, no need to get Isaac involved, > > > good times. > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:10:23 AM UTC+11, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > >> > > >> TL;DR - Package squatting is not allowed. If you sit on a package > > >> name and don't publish code, it'll be deleted without warning. > > >> > > >> ---- > > >> > > >> npm package names have always been a "first come, first served" > > >> system. I think this is generally good. It incentivizes early > > >> adopters, which is important, because they're the most valuable users. > > >> > > >> It also is a powerful motivator to *actually write code*. > > >> Traditionally, the pattern has been that if you think of a great name, > > >> well, you'd better ship something, then! We never had to have an > > >> explicit rule about publishing empty packages, for the same reason > > >> that you don't have to have an explicit rule about leaving garbage on > > >> the floor in someone's house. It's just not something you'd do. > > >> > > >> It is hard to really comprehend *just how many* possible package names > > >> there are. The math isn't that hard, but the actual numbers are > > >> mind-boggling. Even just limiting to 4 characters, there's > > >> 36*38*38*38 potential names. That's about 100x the number of npm > > >> packages that have ever been published. And yes, it includes stuff > > >> like 0-_-, but still. You don't have to limit it to 4 characters. At > > >> 8 characters, there's 4118960973312 potential names. If you got TJ > > >> Holowaychunk and Raynos and Substack and architectd and Dominic Tarr > > >> together and managed to get them to publish a package with a unique > > >> 8-character name every MILLISECOND, it'd take OVER 130 YEARS to ever > > >> use them all up! Absurdity aside, there are millions and millions of > > >> common words and clever spellings. We'll never run out. There is no > > >> scarcity. > > >> > > >> (To the alpha-nerds in the audience: this is not a challenge. Please > > >> don't DOS the registry. ;) > > >> > > >> The official policy for handing name disputes mostly focuses on > > >> abandoned modules, confusing name collisions, and other cases where > > >> two parties both actually have published (or want to publish) working > > >> code. There's never been a need to make the "no seat saving" > > >> explicit, because it just didn't happen much. Disputes between two > > >> authors have generally always been handled pretty easily. The > > >> occasional "no code here" module was always a mistake or an oversight, > > >> and promptly cleaned up. > > >> > > >> Lately, probably owing to the increase in our community's size, or the > > >> increase in npm's popularity, or some combination of factors, I've > > >> been seeing a lot more cases where someone asks to use a module, > > >> pointing out that the author isn't using it, and they're told, "No, > > >> that's something I'll be publishing at some time in the future." When > > >> I've stepped in and made a ruling, pointing out that **npm is for node > > >> modules that exist, not for node modules that don't exist**, the > > >> squatters have in some cases reacted with surprise and frustration. > > >> It's gotten un-amicable. > > >> > > >> If you think I'm talking about you, you're probably right. But I > > >> wouldn't bother to write this if it had been an isolated incident, so > > >> you're not alone. I don't want to single anyone out, and it's > > >> happened enough times that clearly there's some widespread confusion > > >> about what's ok and what isn't. You're not a bad person. You didn't > > >> know. > > >> > > >> > > -- > Sent from my iPad > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
