Consider shipping fewer bundles

未关闭
#361 2 条评论 5 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
4/5
预计耗时
3-5 天
新手友好度
35/100
Issue 类型
重构
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
停滞
技术栈
javascript

调研方向

Start with package.json lines 39-71 and inspect which sources, bundles, and source maps are included in the published npm package. Compare the ESM and CommonJS outputs, then decide which artifacts can be removed while preserving the supported package formats. Done means a smaller published package with faster installs and no unnecessary duplicate bundles or source maps.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

https://github.com/foliojs/fontkit/blob/fbf3b9ef21eebd219eb73e666faed573af0fba09/package.json#L39-L71

Currently the following is in the published npm package:

  • sources
  • ES module bundle
  • browser bundle
  • CommonJS bundle
  • browser CommonJS bundle

On top of this source maps exist for each bundle.

maybe im missing something, but it seems we're now at the point where these are equivalent:

  • ES module / browser
  • CommonJS / browser CommonJS

The sources probably don't need to be published, and the sourcemaps are likely unused too (who is debugging fontkit in their node modules?).

Can we greatly simplify this to where we either ship ESM-only, or at least only the ESM/CJS bundles and no sourcemaps?

The gain here would be faster installs, and smaller install size.

主要语言
JavaScript
星标
1.7k
派生
254
平均合并
1 天 14 小时
30 天内合并 PR
19

环境准备

这个项目没有提供开发容器、Dockerfile 或贡献指南,环境需要你自己搭建:先看它的 README,通用步骤见我们的新手贡献指南。

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

foliojs/fontkit 的其他 Issue

查看 foliojs/fontkit 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 JavaScript Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。