-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Maintenance & Governance of standard #1948
Comments
A mob consisting of @rostislav-simonik , @jay-bulk and I are trying to adopt this project. We are working on it four hours weekly. I say trying because we haven't yet received npm publish permission for anything other than eslint-config-standard-with-typescript. Would you be interested in hopping in during one of our sessions? Schedule here: |
The mob programming model does not really work for the rest of us. I don't think I would be able to join your mob call anytime soon. |
Sorry—just to clarify—the rest of us whom, please? |
Sure. I'll do what I can. |
Currently, no one is doing releases for this project, and it has essentially stalled. @voxpelli has been doing releases for the last 2 years, and this initiative has its blessing as well. Ultimately, I would prefer to move this forward vs forking, but forking is 100% an option. cc @wesleytodd |
@mcollina I'm the newest "member" to join the mob group. I'd be happy to hop on a call and fill in the gaps if the rest of the team is unable. |
Sorry. Of course I'll be happy to join whatever call you're organizing. I'm also sorry that our mob did not receive @feross' trust by now and that this is happening instead. @feross did, however, let us know that he will look into our past contributions during December in order to assess his faith in us. |
For context, eslint-config-standard-with-typescript, the package I've authored and have been maintaining for several years and more recently with the help of @rostislav-simonik and @jay-bulk in our mob seems at a level of popularity similar to the standard package. For more context, here is a message I wrote earlier on Discord. And a copy-paste here:
We couldn't get far on any package other than eslint-config-standard-with-typescript due to lack of npm publish permissions on them. We are three capable developers who've for the past few months have been blocked from maintaining this package set by lack of faith. And now someone else who seems to have won @feross faith is tasked to organize governance. This doesn't make me feel wanted. |
Based on this issue it sounds like official governance to maintain commit/publish access would be very helpful. Even the best individual maintainers cannot keep juggling everything, and the "lack of faith" problem is more about not having a governance model in place for building that trust. Really happy to help out here, especially knowing there are people who want to do the work. |
I'm +1 on @mcollina here, but I guess you know my point of view on this @mightyiam |
First task of your group @mightyiam should be to at least get Before that's done there's nothing showing that you are aware of or in line with the philosophy of this project |
@voxpelli that was aggressive. |
I'm not sure I have npm publish permission for that package. |
The issue of maintenance & governance of Standard definitely makes sense, as the maintenance/development is quite inactive outside of Standard need maintainers volunteers, there are already @mightyiam showing his interest and others. Now... Not everyone agrees, and I can understand that giving npm publish permission to someone is risky and the decision should be taken carefully. Maybe, the current maintainers having the npm permissions, could at least review the PRs and release new versions when needed, building the trust in collaboration with the ones submitting the PRs. We might also define the list of TODOs and the goals of Standard moving forward, what I see already are the following issues:
And probably lot more TODOs... |
Some example governence docs for reference:
I think it is important to scale the governence process to the project scope. I don't think something as complicated as Node's is needed here, but also express's is a bit lacking imo. I really like the way fastify structures this, and I think a few key things need to be established:
If having a sustainable model is the goal, we need some more generic governance practices before really digging into the list of todos imo. Not that it should stop folks from working on those, but to keep things going smoothly with a large group there needs to be some small structure around the goals and decision making. |
Hello, All topics mentioned here are essential, but I suggest not deviating too much. The most pressing issue now is to unblock those willing to spend time on this project because the most precious thing they offer is their time. I understand that new people could have different objectives, and original maintainers are cautious that we won't deviate from the original purpose of this project. To mitigate this risk, let's try to capture goals and principles a little bit better. So, each contributor can follow them, and PR reviews would become a formality rather than a necessity. During work on eslint-config-standard-with-typescript, we were following a few rules.
But there were a few cases where we had the dilemma of what would be the option, not violating upstream concept principles. So if @feross and the other original maintainers could spend one hour or two to capture those principles into some standard bible, it would make our decision-making much easier. And then who would have lead decisions or who will own the npm access tokens, would be the least concern. |
I'd be also interested in maintaining Standard. |
I vote for forks, and then if any of them become a clear successor, feross can consider re-merging. My sense is that conflicting interests/priorities have developed over time and are a major factor in lack of maintenance. I'm also open to an open governance approach, but it also depends on what that turns into. Generally my priorities would be:
|
I agree on those priorities I think, but I am not sure why forking is better. Forking means many people need to make changes across hundreds of repos. I have not followed all the convos here, so I can probably brush up on what has been going on, but is there an example of something that is an incompatible opinion among contributors in this ecosystem? |
Like this one But I was always wondering why both couldn't live. What prevents having a formatless config and then another that lives above that? |
Yeah, these are the kinds of topics you have a TC and governance doc to help guide a decision for. Ideally that governance group represents the diverse opinions of the users of the project, but even if not should strive to resolve the discussion in a way that keeps it healthy. Nothing in that topic (although controversial) seems like something impossible to reconcile. It seems like right now the problem is not even agreeing on a direction but shipping anything. So maybe we unlock the ability to make small uncontroversial changes now and then make the second agenda item listing and deciding on a direction for those more contravertial changes? |
If you used a GitHub action with required reviewers to publish, could that help unblock progress? |
Problem is lack of governance not lack of publishing |
@mcollina, so what are the next steps? When do you plan to throw a meeting? Can we please pencil the agenda for that call? Do we have some expectations of what we should prepare before the call? If I could provide my requirements ahead of time, then those would be mostly related to typescript ecosystem and automated CI
|
I would push us to have a discussion that is not that in the weeds initially. All of those topics are pretty in the weeds and getting governance in place is more high level. So the meeting should discuss project leadership, decision making guidance, how to manage access and publish rights, etc. And then all those points can be for later discussions or async in issues. |
Yes, I agree. I listed them mostly to understand which group I belong to. Ideally, it would be best if the governance model would incorporate rules for effectively transferring responsibilities from concerning people who become busy with something else. Or effective substitution, Because that's what is/was the current issue. Not the lack of interest to maintain/govern, but not having enough time to onboard new group. |
I see this as an effort to eliminate some indecision paralysis while trying some bolder ideas. Thanks for the hard work from everyone involved and I hope the efforts will benefit the community going forward. FWIW, I'm open to reconciling efforts in the future if that possibility makes sense. |
Probably time to deprecate standard, if no one want to maintain it anymore. |
I think deprecation would be premature at this point. |
The governance of eslint-config-standard and -with-typescript is unclear and causing trouble for this project. This patch pulls in the relevant code from -with-standard as a first step towards fully owning the ESLint configuration. A follow-up patch is planned to do the same for eslint-config-standard. By doing this, we are able to upgrade `@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin` from v6 to v7, which is the current latest version. Refs: standard/standard#1948 Refs: standard/standard#1957
…195) The governance of eslint-config-standard and -with-typescript is unclear and causing trouble for this project. This patch pulls in the relevant code from -with-standard as a first step towards fully owning the ESLint configuration. A follow-up patch is planned to do the same for eslint-config-standard. By doing this, we are able to upgrade `@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin` from v6 to v7, which is the current latest version. Refs: standard/standard#1948 Refs: standard/standard#1957
Continuation of #195. Dropping the dependency on eslint-config-standard due to unclear governance, and since it can be considered unmaintained. Refs: standard/standard#1948
Continuation of #195. Dropping the dependency on eslint-config-standard due to unclear governance, and since it can be considered unmaintained. Refs: standard/standard#1948
Just want to fully understand what the full impact of this decision is? Does this mean that Standard.js will remain as is, static with no further updates, patches, fixes etc? Therefore, a potential risk long term and we should look to adopt something else to mitigate that risk? |
neostandard is an open governance fork that includes some modernizations and updates to the existing standard, as well some larger architectural changes (like leaning into the eslint ecosystem a bit more heavily to take advantages of LSP tooling). It's still a bit under development but worth checking out if you want access to the improvements it makes now. I had a discussion with @feross the other week and he is open to reconciling the neostandard fork back into mainline standard and adopting the governance model neostandard has adopted. Currently discussing with those involved. That would be my personal desired outcome. In the meantime, standard continues to work as is. |
* https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/migrate-to-9.0.0 * https://eslint.style/guide/migration * https://github.com/neostandard/neostandard/ (standard/standard#1948) fix broken Dependabot PRs such as FreshRSS#6680
* Migrate to ESLint 9 * https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/migrate-to-9.0.0 * https://eslint.style/guide/migration * https://github.com/neostandard/neostandard/ (standard/standard#1948) fix broken Dependabot PRs such as #6680 * comma-dangle rule is already included * Use more standard filename * More flexible syntax globals * resolveIgnoresFromGitignore * Dependabog update * Relax object-shorthand * GitHub action node-version * GitHub action node-version again * object-shorthand: off * node >=18 due to dependencies
Because standard does not support ESLint 9 yet because a governance issue, see standard/standard#1948 (comment)
I happened to hit upon one of the previous issues we'd come across when considering how we could get ESLint and StandardJS to work together. [Support for Eslint v9 Flat Config format](standard/eslint-config-standard#411) was one of the blockers that meant to have both ESLint and StandardJS play ball, we were stuck on ESLint v8. I spotted that there had been some [recent activity](standard/eslint-config-standard#411 (comment)), all of which referenced an alternative called 'neostandard'. And oh my! All my issues/dreams were answered - Built for ESlint to avoid the need for separate IDE tooling - Built for the latest ESLint (v9) so flat-file config is supported - Just like we did, any style rules have been updated to use @stylistic/eslint-plugin - A desire to work with current practices. So, banning or requiring ; is an option, along with disabling style rules for those opting to use prettier For context, maintenance on StandardJS and related packages like eslint-config-standard has been stalled for some time. neostandard references the issue as being a [block in governance and direction of travel](standard/standard#1948). I've not been through every message, but it appears the maintainers are split between those who remained committed to StandardJS's 'one-tool one way' approach and those looking to move to where most folks are: ESLint. Even our own @johnwatson484 [has gotten involved!](standard/standard#1948 (comment)) The thread suggests that those behind StandardJS are open to reconciling the neostandard fork with StandardJS. But that comment was made some time ago. My bet is neostandard is here to stay as the successor to StandardJS. So, this change strips out all my hand-cranked implementations of the StandardJS rules, including those it was implementing from other plugins and replaces them with neostandard. Lovely!
I happened to hit upon one of the previous issues we'd come across when considering how we could get ESLint and StandardJS to work together. [Support for Eslint v9 Flat Config format](standard/eslint-config-standard#411) was one of the blockers that meant to have both ESLint and StandardJS play ball, we were stuck on ESLint v8. I spotted that there had been some [recent activity](standard/eslint-config-standard#411 (comment)), all of which referenced an alternative called 'neostandard'. And oh my! All my issues/dreams were answered - Built for ESlint to avoid the need for separate IDE tooling - Built for the latest ESLint (v9) so flat-file config is supported - Just like we did, any style rules have been updated to use @stylistic/eslint-plugin - A desire to work with current practices. So, banning or requiring ; is an option, along with disabling style rules for those opting to use prettier For context, maintenance on StandardJS and related packages like eslint-config-standard has been stalled for some time. neostandard references the issue as being a [block in governance and direction of travel](standard/standard#1948). I've not been through every message, but it appears the maintainers are split between those who remained committed to StandardJS's 'one-tool one way' approach and those looking to move to where most folks are: ESLint. Even our own @johnwatson484 [has gotten involved!](standard/standard#1948 (comment)) The thread suggests that those behind StandardJS are open to reconciling the neostandard fork with StandardJS. But that comment was made some time ago. My bet is neostandard is here to stay as the successor to StandardJS. So, this change strips out all my hand-cranked implementations of the StandardJS rules, including those it was implementing from other plugins and replaces them with neostandard. Lovely!
DEFRA/water-abstraction-team#115 Now, we are a team of seven, with seven different opinions on the 'right' way to write the code! Because of our size, we are splitting into two teams to focus on various features simultaneously. But we'll still be working with the one code base. We'd already moved from just using [StandardJS](https://standardjs.com/) to lint our code to using **StandardJS** via **ESLint** (we kept the rules but not the tool) because there are too many cases where **StandardJS** has no ruling, but we wanted one. However, each time these rules don't provide a style convention, the team must stop, discuss, debate, and finally decide how something will be done. We want something else to take the decision away from us! Step forward [Prettier](https://prettier.io/). **Prettier** is an opinionated code formatter that focuses only on the style of the code. > Prettier enforces a consistent code style (i.e. code formatting that won’t affect the AST) across your entire codebase because it disregards the original styling by parsing it away and re-printing the parsed AST with its own rules that take the maximum line length into account, wrapping code when necessary. So, any rules or conventions we have that would affect the [Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)](https://www.nearform.com/insights/what-is-an-abstract-syntax-tree/) would still be controlled by **ESlint**. These are the things as a team it is worth spending time debating and agreeing. For the rest, we intend to let **Prettier** take over. It is widely used across the JavScript community and is popularly advocated for teams that become large or dispersed like ours. Our approach to the adoption was first to remove our existing **ESlint** config, add **Prettier**, and then let it update all the files. Then, having checked through as a team there were no 'red-line' changes, commit them. We then add **ESlint** back in and only re-apply the non-stylistic rules. Our research found that JSDoc is still better managed through **ESlint** (**Prettier** does nothing with it), so we also added our original config for that. Another fundamental change is that we are no longer bringing in **StandardJS** as an **ESlint** extension. This means we can move to the latest **ESlint** v9 and away from the [deprecated config file format](https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/configure/configuration-files-deprecated) to the new [flat file config](https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/configure/configuration-files). Previously, we'd been blocked because extensions are not supported in ESLint v9. **StandardJS** does provide [eslint-config-standard](https://github.com/standard/eslint-config-standard), but along with the core project, it does not appear to be actively maintained, is still using the deprecated **ESLint** style rules and has an error so cannot be used. > See [Switch to new eslint config format](#991) for more details on why this was blocking us We'd resigned ourselves to manually copying and updating the rules from their plugin when we revisited an old issue when first switching to **ESLint** with **StandardJS**. [Support for Eslint v9 Flat Config format](standard/eslint-config-standard#411) was one of the blockers that meant to have both **ESLint** and **StandardJS** play ball, we were stuck on ESLint v8. We spotted that there had been some [recent activity](standard/eslint-config-standard#411 (comment)), all of which referenced an alternative called [neostandard](https://github.com/neostandard/neostandard). And oh gosh! All our dreams were answered. - Built for ESlint to avoid the need for separate IDE tooling - Built for the latest ESLint (v9), so flat-file config is supported - Just like we did, any style rules have been updated to use @stylistic/eslint-plugin - An explicit desire to work with current practices. So, built for use with ESLint only, banning or requiring `;` is now an option, and disabling style rules for those opting to use **prettier** is possible For context, maintenance on **StandardJS** and related packages like **eslint-config-standard** has been stalled for some time. **neostandard** references the issue as being a [block in governance and direction of travel](standard/standard#1948 (comment)). I've not been through every message, but it appears the maintainers are split between those who remained committed to StandardJS's 'one-tool one-way' approach and those looking to move to where most folks are: **ESLint**. Even our own @johnwatson484 [has gotten involved!](standard/standard#1948 (comment)). We're betting this isn't going to be resolved any time soon, so to avoid us having to maintain standard rules in our ESLint config manually, the final fundamental change to highlight is we're now using ESLint + neostandard to manage coding rules.
After a long twitter thread and looking at the contribution graphs, it seems that to keep supporting Standard users, we need to come up with some new governance.
I maintain hundreds of packages relying on standard, Including the whole Fastify organization (discussion link fastify/fastify#5159). It seems simpler to help maintaining this than moving all of those to a different formatter / linter.
@feross said he would trust me to help with governance and kickstart the work again.
Should we schedule a quick call?
@standard/team @voxpelli @jsumners
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: