-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 292
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
Make supabase-js
a monorepo
#308
Comments
Super late reply: I suppose one blocker is this makes versioning and publishing difficult - we use semantic versioning + conventional commits + semantic-release for most repos.
This is actually not needed - e.g. for a bug fix in postgrest-js Other concerns are valid - difficulty to track issues, tree-shaking. The latter probably needs to wait until there's a proposal on how to go about it - I'm personally not familiar with tree-shaking and how monorepos benefit from it. |
@soedirgo , just thought you might want to know that |
+1 on converting to a monorepo. Many months ago I was against monorepos in general. I didn't see any improves in workflow and versioning was scaring to me. But I started a project myself with In my little experience I can tell that monorepos are powerful and versioning is wonderful. Not all projects are eligible to be developed in a monorepo but this project it is. Reasons: |
Chore
Describe the chore
Currently, there are various repos for the various JS clients:
gotrue-js
,postgrest-js
,realtime-js
,storage-js
, andsupabase-js
which wraps them all. This makes it harder to track issues across the various separate repositories. Issues which are fixed in one of the constituent repositories also require an explicit version bump in thesupabase-js
repository, which adds another layer of indirection for new users.Given that most Supabase users tend to just use the main
supabase-js
client which is also highlighted in the docs, I'd propose convertingsupabase-js
into a monorepo which contains all the separate clients. Additionally, this might also ease the transition into using a more tree-shaking friendly approach as planned for 2.0 releases (#170).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: