RFC: Removing ability to specify npm version about nodejs-buildpack HOT 7 CLOSED

redacted (see below)

from nodejs-buildpack.

Hi,

The link to the tracker redirects me to "https://www.pivotaltracker.com/not_allowed". Is it possible to make it publicly readable?

Thanks,
Tomoe

from nodejs-buildpack.

@tomoe - I believe in this case you're getting this error because the story was deleted. And I believe the story was deleted because it's not relevant -- because this is an RFC, all commentary and conversation is (should be) happening in this GitHub Issue.

What additional context are you looking for? Do you have questions?

(I'm going to edit the cf-gitbot comment above to reflect the facts I'm posting.)

from nodejs-buildpack.

For completeness, Shawn on the cf-dev mailing list had a valid use case for keeping the capability of specifying different npm versions:

We have had a few use cases where users have requested to stay on nodejs version 4 (LTS), while taking advantage of npm 3's new flat dependency tree. Node 4 by default bundles witn npm 2. Node 5 defaults to npm 3. In all of these use cases we are using online buildpacks. I would say this use case isn't as common, but we definitely get requests for it.

@flavorjones @dmikusa-pivotal what about documenting that if you are in an offline environment then you should not override the npm version ? is this an acceptable solution ?

from nodejs-buildpack.

@flavorjones,

I believe in this case you're getting this error because the story was deleted. And I believe the story was deleted because it's not relevant -- because this is an RFC, all commentary and conversation is (should be) happening in this GitHub Issue.

Thanks for following up. I wonder if I should've gotten not found (or 404) in that case, though, but it's not really important :-)

What additional context are you looking for? Do you have questions?

I was curious to know where this is going (what and when this change would happen), but it looks like this is not going to happen as per the email list conversation. So, I am good now. Thanks!

from nodejs-buildpack.

@tomoe the reason behind this issue is to start a conversation with users of the buildpack to understand their use cases and whether this change is desired or not. Is this a change that you are for or against and why ?

from nodejs-buildpack.

@jvshahid Looks like this proposal is going to be retracted because of the response in the email list. I am all for it.
I think this issue is now good to be closed.

from nodejs-buildpack.