On 26 August 2014 11:15, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> >> All of these packages (IMHO) should be named as
> "node-${CATEGORY}utils", i.e.:
>> >> * node-httputils
>>
> To avoid the case where one upstream module gets called 'httputils',
> i suggest a different name scheme:
> nodemodules-
+1
>> > Th
Le dimanche 24 août 2014 à 18:49 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
On 23 August 2014 21:23, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 août 2014 à 16:52 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
> >> On 23 August 2014 12:08, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >> > I prefer the first idea from Thorsten:
> >> > "time", "email", "fs" p
On 23 August 2014 21:23, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Le samedi 23 août 2014 à 16:52 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
>> On 23 August 2014 12:08, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> > I prefer the first idea from Thorsten:
>> > "time", "email", "fs" packages bundling utilities by category.
>> >
>> > Let's try to make a li
Le samedi 23 août 2014 à 16:52 +0200, Leo Iannacone a écrit :
> On 23 August 2014 12:08, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > I prefer the first idea from Thorsten:
> > "time", "email", "fs" packages bundling utilities by category.
> >
> > Let's try to make a list of categories ?
>
> What about:
> * http
> *
On 23 August 2014 12:08, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> I prefer the first idea from Thorsten:
> "time", "email", "fs" packages bundling utilities by category.
>
> Let's try to make a list of categories ?
What about:
* http
* css
* html
* time
* mime
* mail (?)
* log (?)
* fs (?)
All of these packa
On 23 August 2014 10:55, Leo Iannacone wrote:
> On 23 August 2014 10:12, Leo Iannacone wrote:
>> Why not try to identify some "categories" (as suggested for node-ms:
>> "time", or "email" or "filesystem" ...) to regroup those small modules
>> ?
>
> Another approach could be to group all modules w
On 23 August 2014 10:12, Leo Iannacone wrote:
> Why not try to identify some "categories" (as suggested for node-ms:
> "time", or "email" or "filesystem" ...) to regroup those small modules
> ?
Another approach could be to group all modules which are coming from
the same "team".
For instance, we
On 22 August 2014 16:31, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> While maintaining a buch of unrelated packages seems difficult,
> would it make sense to regroup all competing packages that bring similar
> functions ?
>
> Sometimes one module is clearly better than others and we try to patch
> less popular modules aw
