3 ms·
> it's in npm's best interest to make it easy to publish leftpad.js easily That's what I was getting at above. It definitely was in NPM's best interest to do
by kbenson 8y ago
> it's in npm's best interest to make it easy to publish leftpad.js easily
That's what I was getting at above. It definitely was in NPM's best interest to do so. Depending on your definition of "easily", is it still in their interest to have it quite that easy? Perhaps a different default is in order now, as you suggest. Or perhaps it should even require a confirmation dialog on the terminal for the first public push? People will still use NPM at this point. Not having enough packages or a package for a specific functionality is hardly a problem for them any more.
- adrianhel 8y agoThey could just change it to `npm publish npm|url name` with some useful warnings. The name should be checked against package.name. Then libraries could simply add an npm script for publishing. npm publish To publish a package to npm, you must enter: npm publish npm <package-name> To publish a package to another registry, you must enter: npm publish <url> <package-name> Just as easy, just clearer.
- madeofpalk 8y agocool, so now the developer that did this will just thoughtlessly type npm publish npm instead. At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do. Really, a hammer shouldn't have a prompt on it confirming each hit. If it does, users will just instinctively press it and then a few months down the road they'll hit their thumb.