Polymer engineering has never said anything but this: "use <Org>/<Repo>". I expressly asked our team not to publish to Bower registry for all the reasons I already gave.
>> 1. bower install polymer 2. bower install polymer-polymer 3. bower install Polymer/polymer << I don't have any clue what 2 refers to. Rob also referred to `polymer-platform` and `polymer-polymer`. I have no idea where those came from either. >> [Rob] bower.json file depends on "Polymer/platform" bower creates a new directory just using the repo name No, our bower.json entries look like this: "platform": "Polymer/platform" The folder name is on the left, the repo name is not used. On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Eric Bidelman <[email protected]> wrote: > My $0.02: I care more about preventing confusion than the command we > recommend. The main thing is be consistent. > > My impression is that most people don't know the "Polymer/xyx" shorthand > (I didn't), but they'll use whatever ends up in our docs. The confusing > bit is having 3 different ways to get Polymer atm: > > 1. bower install polymer > 2. bower install polymer-polymer > 3. bower install Polymer/polymer > > The same decision applies to Platform :/. There's a redundancy in having > both #1 and #2 as official packages we publish. *W**hat do we think about > consolidating #1 and #2?* > > IMO, if we're doing the work of maintaining packages, we should recommend > them. Obviously a huge benefit is discoverability, but the other is > that's how most people know, interact, and used Bower in 2013. We'll see > what the rest of this year brings. > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You can end up with multiple directories for the same stuff. >> >> >> How? >> >> >> bower install polymer-platform >> bower install polymer >> bower install polymer-polymer >> >> In your bower_components you'll now have folders for polymer, platform, >> polymer-platform, and polymer-polymer. Because polymer's bower.json file >> depends on "Polymer/platform" bower creates a new directory just using the >> repo name. I believe this could lead to a scenario where Component A links >> to ../polymer and Component B links to ../polymer-polymer. >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Steve Orvell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> You can end up with multiple directories for the same stuff. >>> >>> >>> How? >>> >>> It feels "un-bower" like to force people to use Owner/Repo syntax. >>> >>> >>> Perhaps this suggests bower is not the right tool then. >>> >> > No forcing, just prescription :) If a better tool comes along in 2H 2014, > we can evaluate it. This project will continue to lose quarters of blood as > we bleed on the edge! > > >> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment in this case only because I'm >>>> worried the cons might outweigh the pros. >>>> >>>> Here are all the cons I can think of: >>>> >>>> You can end up with multiple directories for the same stuff. I think >>>> this is actually a big enough problem on its own to outweigh everything >>>> else. There are many people who are not bower savvy who will have a tough >>>> time debugging issues with a polymer and polymer-polymer directory floating >>>> around in their bower_components dir. I'm really worried about component >>>> authors mixing Owner/Repo and registry named dependencies... >>>> >>>> Many people use bower's command line search tool (myself included) >>>> which only looks at packages in the registry. If we don't register our >>>> packages we're removing that avenue. Technically some of our packages are >>>> registered but not all of them, which leads to the next point... >>>> >>>> If we don't register our packages (polymer-ajax, for example) it means >>>> someone else can squat on the name. Which is a bit of a bummer. And folks >>>> might install the wrong component. >>>> >>>> It feels "un-bower" like to force people to use Owner/Repo syntax. >>>> Polymer is the only project I know of which goes this route. Most libraries >>>> that know about bower and include a bower.json have a name in the registry >>>> that they encourage people to use. >>>> >>>> >>>> The pros I can think of: >>>> >>>> It makes it easier to manage all of your components when you don't have >>>> to deal with registering them. This is especially tough on a project like >>>> polymer where components have so many interdependencies. >>>> >>>> You're not too tied to the bower name/brand/methodology. You don't want >>>> people thinking that bower "owns" these components, in some fashion. >>>> >>>> You don't have to fight over a registry name. If someone had already >>>> registered polymer-ajax it wouldn't be a big deal to keep using Owner/Repo. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ultimately we're telling users two different ways to do it in our docs >>>> which has to be confusing for anyone new to bower. Above all else we should >>>> decide which direction to go with and use it everywhere. >>>> >>>> - Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Scott Miles <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not a fan of central registries. I've advocated using >>>>> `Polymer/<element>` syntax since we embraced Bower, so that's my $0.02. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Marcin Warpechowski < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In my projects I have experienced some problems (version conflicts) >>>>>> when using "polymer", since then I am using "Polymer/polymer". I am sure >>>>>> not everyone understands bower so deep to understand the implications, >>>>>> so I >>>>>> think it would be good to do it consistently. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:42:28 PM UTC+1, Rob Dodson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I noticed there are some polymer packages registered in the bower >>>>>>> registry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> polymer (links to components/polymer) >>>>>>> polymer-platform >>>>>>> polymer-elements >>>>>>> polymer-ui-elements >>>>>>> polymer-polymer (links to Polymer/polymer) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the polymer docs, we sometimes tell people to install from a >>>>>>> package >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ bower install polymer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and we sometimes tell them to install from the repo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ bower install Polymer/polymer-elements >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm wondering if there might be an incompatibility situation. >>>>>>> For example, if a component author adds polymer-polymer to their >>>>>>> bower.json file, then bower is going to create a folder called >>>>>>> "polymer-polymer" in the bower_components dir. If another author >>>>>>> depends on >>>>>>> "polymer" then the bower_components dir will now contain directories for >>>>>>> both polymer and polymer-polymer. So you might end up with elements >>>>>>> importing the same libraries from different locations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm wondering if we should have one consistent way of doing (and >>>>>>> documenting) everything? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/1154107e-afb1-4a7f-85ca-f405fb1725d4%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAHbmOLaCe-wcFFWa_Sxayq4rNsAeGWPDfn1MOm-%2B%2BS%2By6FLyaQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Polymer" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAJj5OwCTLayyaS9Yu06n6FxWK2NvPx9idvVP_X3wpiY9wAmKKA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Polymer" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAJj5OwDd7n52spoEhyaUXnhu-dG9dSdH_x2UWh6p0i%3DXJ0q7Xg%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAHbmOLa_Xa%2B2zYuf_mc_VACwvw_tFMArQgoXM4Y-sGsevqZKgg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
