Consider dropping ./packages

[dmolsen]

Figure out what would be required to drop ./packages from the directory layout. There are some templates that are available in ./packages but maybe those need to go elsewhere in ./source or similar.

[dmolsen]

@aleksip @EvanLovely -

Looking for feedback. If I move ./packages/listeners.json and ./packages/patternengines.json to ./config the only reason for ./packages to exist is the pattern engine-specific templates for the view all view and a generic header/footer inserts. I think I can read them out of ./vendor just fine. Sound ok to ditch ./packages then? Unified Asset Installer could also go away at that point.

[EvanLovely]

@dmolsen I like that idea! I had a few issues with ./packages/listeners.json being gitignored. Not really reproducible or to be worried about, but overall I like the idea of that folder being folded into ./vendor.

[aleksip]

@dmolsen Sounds good!

[dmolsen]

The feature-installupdate branches of the development edition and core (amongst others) now support a new install process. Key points:

• All packages are installed before trying to run any PL core installer hooks so no more worrying about install order
• While I haven't run this against a non-dev release I'm hopeful this means we can be "looser" with dependency requirements thereby addressing Don't require very specific dependencies of upstream libraries #9
• StarterKits are the first objects moved into ./source/ so, again, no more worrying about order
• ./packages is no more and so is Unified Asset Installer as a dependency
• Move listeners.json and patternengines.json to ./config #13 has been addressed
• Using a PSR-4 compatible class lookup for listeners and patternengines (thx @bangpound)

I still need to play with this a bit more. Not a ton changed honestly but I'm sure there may be a quirk or two. Still to do:

• handle package uninstall. the original code looked close but unfinished
• address Add parsing of PL extra section in main project's composer.json #15
• figure out how we'll coordinate this BC breaking change across all of the repos. joy! this means a v1.0.0 designation for at least core and editions. nothing else should have to change.

Take a peek at it and let me know what you all think.

[aleksip]

Tried out the feature-installupdate branch. Successful install & generate, ./packages not there, listeners.json and patternengines.json found under ./config.

Also tested installing with plugin-data-transform. Successful install & generate, plugin working as expected!

[dmolsen]

I was able to get the package uninstall stuff working so I feel pretty comfortable wrapping this up and pushing a release. This is currently a blocker for a number of other ideas that are currently floating around. We will need to coordinate on this as I'd like to reduce conflicts as much as I can.

Again, this will be released as v1.0.0 because it breaks BC. I would like to see editions standardize on the following:

• a .gitignore that matches the drupal edition
• including composer.lock in editions
• looser package requirements. at first this will just be ~ on packages based on Don't require very specific dependencies of upstream libraries #9 . a future version bump after the Travis work is complete could be completely updated version numbers for packages.

I need to check included packages and try to map out how each references core and update how editions refer to them. Meaning, I could need to update composer.json for the various packages and then push new tags. I feel like pattern lab packages need to reference core as a dependency in case core changes an expected output and we need to tweak a package. But, like I said, I need to draw this out and think it through.

Would making this change on Wednesday, May 18 work for people?

[EvanLovely]

That day works for me! Been wanting to wrap up a lot of stuff we're pushing out by depending on 1.x instead of 0.x too.

[EvanLovely]

@dmolsen Just tossing an idea out there: what about bumping core to v2.0.0 instead as v1.0.0 feels like the original: pattern-lab/patternlab-php - anyway, just an idea :)

[dmolsen]

@EvanLovely my first thought was "no" but when looking at dependencies for the final mustache edition of this it would look odd to be pulling 2.0 of PL and be grabbing 1.x dependencies. Especially core. We'll go with 2.0.

[EvanLovely]

Awesome!! Agreed!

[dmolsen]

With v2.0.0 out this has been addressed.