#### Meeting from: May 13th, 2020

# Open RFC Meeting (npm)

### Attendees
- Darcy Clarke (@darcyclarke)
- Claudia Hernández (@claudiahdz)
- Ruy Adorno (@ruyadorno)
- Wes Todd (@wesleytodd)
- Kael Shipman (@kael-shipman)
- Isaac Z. Schlueter (@isaacs)
- Jordan Harband (@ljharb)

### Agenda

1. **Housekeeping**
1. Introduction(s)
1. Code of Conduct Acknowledgement
1. Outline Intentions & Desired Outcomes
1. Announcements
1. **Note:** [#136 We're Trying out Discussions for **RRFCs** & **cli** Questions](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/issues/136)
1. Feedback
2. Labelling/Automation
3. **PR**: [#135 Clarify/Outline the RFC Withdrawal Process & Amendment](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/135)
4. **PR**: [#133 RFC: Remove --depth from npm outdated](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/133)
5. **PR**: [#129 RFC: overrides](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/129)
6. **PR**: [#126 RFC: Adding types information to the Package JSON in the registry](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/126)
7. **PR**: [#121 Added proposal for package version `link#[version]` syntax](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/121)
8. **PR**: [#117 RFC: npm workspaces - Running Commands](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/117)

### Notes

#### Announcements
- Moved some of the issues into GitHub Discussions
- Some small hiccups, discussions are missing labels, spamming issues participants

#### Withdraw Process
- Discussing how to un-ratify RFCs that are superceded or turn out to not be a good idea [#135](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/135)
- Even though a RFC is withdraw, its original problem should still be valid
- Withdrawing a RFC should also involve a PR for discussion.
- Proposed **Amendment Section** from the current [PR](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/135) which can be added via PR in order to enable further discussion/documentation.

#### Remove --depth from npm outdated
- **Location** is going to be changed to point to its fs path
- Overlap between `audit` and `outdated` in the sense both tackle the need to keep your modules up-to-date
- Could use maybe a new workflow to address the same problem?
- `ls` is problem in the same category, today `ls` prints the logical tree which obscures the actual fs tree
- Worth exploring an `npm update` variation that also runs `audit` and fixes the problems
- Ideally these never gets to be a problem that the user has to handle
- Maybe repurpose `npm doctor` to do that
- Kickstart the conversation around how do we display meaningful package trees in the cli.

#### Overrides
- From the last time we discussed these seemed to be the last remaining items:
- First match is the only one which will affect the resolution
- `'.'` member can not be an object
- That should allow us to solve all the remaining problems surfaced

#### Adding types info to registry
- Simple Boolean might not be enough to solve that

#### npm workspaces - Running command
- Recap, workspaces install was ratified in an initial RFC
- This RFC adresses the capability of running cli commands across all workspaces
- Also, enable users to define a subset of workspaces in which to run a cli command
- Action item: Create a poll in the current RFC to decide on what syntax to use for filtering

#### Added proposal for package version link#[version] syntax
- Some of this overlaps and can be solved by using `workspaces`, or `npm link`
- How to make link deps work for a team (or more than just one person/machine)
- Action item: Follow up with the discussion in the [PR](https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/121)