Skip to content
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

Publish vulcanized version #43

Open
sorvell opened this issue Jul 17, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

Publish vulcanized version #43

sorvell opened this issue Jul 17, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@sorvell
Copy link
Contributor

sorvell commented Jul 17, 2015

Right now bowering iron-component-page results in 27 components. This pollutes the components folder with a lot of otherwise potentially unnecessary stuff. A vulcanized version of iron-component-page would produce just 1 component in the components folder which would be a nice simplification.

The goal is to facilitate iron-component-page being a direct dependency of elements rather than a devDependency. This way the docs are available whenever a user installs the element.

The vulcanize step should be part of the release process for iron-component-page.

@sorvell sorvell added the p1 label Jul 17, 2015
@sorvell sorvell changed the title Published vulcanized version to avoid explosion of components Publish vulcanized version to avoid explosion of components Jul 17, 2015
@sorvell sorvell changed the title Publish vulcanized version to avoid explosion of components Publish vulcanized version Jul 17, 2015
@dfreedm
Copy link
Contributor

dfreedm commented Jul 17, 2015

It seems not good to have a big mandatory dependency for every element just to have docs. Why don't we just have a link to the docs?

@sjmiles
Copy link
Contributor

sjmiles commented Jul 22, 2015

I measure the dependency load more in terms of # of components/files then in pure Kb (at least until we get into Mb). Strikes me that a single dependency with a tiny # of files is a small cost. Loading the doc-viewer means the user can for sure see docs on the exact source they have, works offline, etc.

@notwaldorf
Copy link
Contributor

Could this be included in the CLI tool? /cc @justinfagnani

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants