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
docs: rewrite private npm module support #8906
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@HonkingGoose I think put a pause on this until after we merge v25, then reassess which changes to keep applying. Thanks |
da5b984
to
eedc0fb
Compare
I've force pushed to current I think this PR is ready for a initial "sanity check" review. I don't know if all the text is up to date with the current behavior in the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should make the initial description more generic and add some manager and registry specific samples at bottom.
We also discussed this a bit in #9205 (docs: explain better how to lookup private Maven repositories), where @rarkins said:
What do you like best @rarkins?
|
I looked at this today and was thinking it's easiest to rename this to be npm specific and then start over with a new generic doc I'd write |
I've renamed the file so that it's npm specific. This PR is ready for a review as a npm specific document now. I think it makes sense for @rarkins to create a new PR after this one gets merged, so that we can decide what parts we want to keep in the npm docs, and what we want to move/expand on in the generic docs. We could copy/paste the |
You should add a new document, otherwise we have broken docs links |
Done. I'll try to fill this out with high priority after the merge |
🎉 This PR is included in version 25.3.1 🎉 The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Changes:
Basically a full rewrite.
Major changes:
I've tried to clarify some difficult to read text, but this needs a review from the maintainers to verify if the text is correct.
Context:
Helps with #7626.
Documentation (please check one with an [x])
How I've tested my work (please tick one)
I have verified these changes via: