Adding Yarn Package Manager to Tea Protocol

[furkancelik]

Introduction:

Tea recognises that the efforts of open source software developers and contributors are not adequately rewarded. We recognise that this leads to poorly maintained, vulnerable or low quality software. With this problem in mind, we recognise that Tea aims to develop a protocol that increases the sustainability and integrity of the software supply chain by allowing open source developers to capture the value they create.

Current Status:

The package managers to be supported in the Tea Protocol V1 are:

• crates
• npm
• pkgx
• hombrew
• pypi
• apt-get
• rubygems

Discussion:

One thing I noticed is that Yarn, a very popular package manager in the JavaScript world, is not included in the list of supported package managers. Yarn has a large user base, especially among the JavaScript and Node.js communities, and offers some unique features compared to npm. Yarn is known for its caching mechanisms and parallel download features, which enable faster and more reliable management of project dependencies.

Benefits of Adding Yarn:

• One of the most popular package managers in the JavaScript ecosystem.
• It is fast, reliable and easy to use.
• It offers advanced functions and features to developers.
• It has a large community and a wide range of libraries.

Logic and Compatibility:

The inclusion of Yarn in Tea Protocol V1 could lead to more developers from the JavaScript and Node.js ecosystems showing interest in our project. This could increase the accessibility and utilisation of Tea Protocol, expanding our support for open source software developers. Supporting Yarn is also in line with our project's mission to contribute to the sustainability and integrity of open source software.

Conclusion and Call:

The inclusion of Yarn in Tea Protocol V1 will increase the scope and impact of our project and make it a more attractive option for developers in the JavaScript community. I ask that you consider this proposal and initiate further discussion about the integration of Yarn into our protocol.

Thank you.
Furkan Çelik
Tea Username: furkancelik
Dc: furkancelik101
Tea Account Adress:
0xa6266715C783FcCfeC76D35BD1aCb46205F10715

[mxcl]

I’m no expert for sure, but unless I’m mistaken yarn just uses the npm registry, so we already do support yarn.

[furkancelik]

Yes, npm and Yarn both function as package managers for Node.js and retrieve packages from the same npm registry. This means that in practice both tools can use the same package resources. So, from a technical perspective, the fact that npm is already integrated in the Tea protocol means that Yarn can naturally be supported as well.

However, the addition of a package manager is not only a technical issue; factors such as community support, user habits and visibility of the platform must also be considered. Yarn is particularly popular among certain communities, and catering to users' preferences can help make the Tea protocol more inclusive and accessible.

In terms of SEO, redirecting searches for the term "Yarn" to the Tea protocol can strengthen the project's web presence and enable it to reach a wider audience. This is especially important if we want to target Yarn users and attract them to the Tea ecosystem.

Finally, the existence of other promising package managers such as pnpm and Deno shows that the package management ecosystem is constantly evolving and expanding. Therefore, it is important that the Tea protocol adapts to technology and community trends by supporting different package managers. This approach can increase the sustainability of the project and its relevance among the wider community.

In conclusion, the integration of Yarn into the Tea protocol can have a number of positive impacts beyond technical compatibility and help the project gain wider acceptance by the community.

[mxcl]

So your proposal is that in copy instead of saying npm we say npm / yarn?

[furkancelik]

Yes, like in the pictures, maybe yarn can be added.

[mxcl]

this will just confuse people who understand that there is no difference between the two from a registry perspective. So I find it unlikely we will add a completely separate option in the lists. npm / yarn seems acceptable to me, but really it would then need to be npm / yarn / deno / bun/ pnpm (I’m sure I’m missing some more).

[furkancelik]

Yes, I think it will be ridiculous to add two options to the listing. After all, they both use npm. Instead, since yarn is more popular, we can change the npm sections on the site to npm / yarn. I was going to edit the repo, but I couldn't take any action because there was nothing about it in the white paper. Probably the repo is a private repo...

[mixaeljr]

Great Idea