Simplify package.json

[zlatanvasovic]

1. There's a shorter owner/repository syntax for GitHub repositories according to npm docs.
2. normalize-package-data says bugs are needless if you've specified the repository.

[lpinca]

+0, I see no real value in doing this.

[zlatanvasovic]

Software development is based on constant improvement. If people reacted like you did now, we'd still be stuck on writing programs in machine language.

[lpinca]

@zdroid I'm sorry if my comment looks like a judgment, that wasn't my intention.
I'm not opposing to this change (note the +0) but I can't see how it is useful.

[pin3da]

@zdroid In my opinion is less readable because it hides information.

btw, I don't think that '+0' is a bad opinion, is just appointing that there is no improvement in doing that.

[zlatanvasovic]

It doesn't hide any information. You don't need to be told again you're using a git repository hosted on https://github.com.

[sotayamashita]

@zdroid

1. There's a shorter owner/repository syntax for GitHub repositories according to npm docs.

If it is an optional choice, I think we do not have to change it.

2. normalize-package-data says bugs are needless if you've specified the repository.

I agree with this to follow the standard.

[zlatanvasovic]

@sotayamashita Basically, both of those are already standard, especially the first. They're widely accepted by the npm community.

[sotayamashita]

@zdroid I am sorry and I do not know it. If both of those are, I think it looks good

[ryanmurakami]

+1
I like the reduction of boilerplate in a package.json. I think the assumptions of where the source code is stored is widely understood as being Github, so removing that just makes it cleaner and easier to read.

[zlatanvasovic]

Merging this, as opinions were positive and the proposed changes don't affect general build at all.