Publish scribejs in npm

[tripu]

[iherman]

I am not sure what that means...

[tripu]

@iherman:

It means uploading a snapshot of the software to npmjs.com — the public npm registry by default.

The package would appear as authored by W3C: npmjs.com/~w3c (or under your own username, if you prefer that). Any npm user would be able to do npm install scribejs on the command line, or to mention scribejs in the package.json of their own software, to get it installed automatically by npm, and then use it or build on top of it. Admittedly, there aren't many use cases for scribejs as a building block for other tools (it's quite specific to W3C's needs), but we tend to publish our Node.js tools on npm by default, for the same reasons we tend to licence as free/open software by default, etc. It's very quick (both publishing for the first time, and publishing subsequent versions), and there are no obvious disadvantages I can think of.

Most importantly, it's the best way to distribute scribejs to end users (it's the usual way in the Node.js/npm community). Assuming they already have Node.js and npm, they'd do:

$ sudo npm i -g scribejs
$ scribejs -h
⋮

More info:

docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/publishing-npm-packages
docs.npmjs.com/cli/publish

[iherman]

@tripu I understand, and I am fine doing that. But, I would think, we should get all issues closed (except the ones that are labeled as 'future version') before doing that. Also, I would think I cannot do that, I do not have any account/permission to upload package infos...

[tripu]

We should get all issues closed (except the ones that are labeled as 'future version') before doing that.

OK. Then this issue itself becomes “future version”. Labelling it as such and leaving it open until then…

Also, I would think I cannot do that, I do not have any account/permission to upload package infos...

No worries; I'll publish it under W3C's npm account.

[tripu]

@iherman, out of curiosity: “completed” because it's now published as an npm package?

[iherman]

Ouch. Closed a wrong issue... :-(

Thanks for pinging. Yes, this is still pending, and not sure when I will do it (at present there has not been any request for it and it is an extremely W3C specific tool...)