Specify that PR can combine multiple changes, especially for dependencies upgrade

[mchv]

What is being recommended

The current emphasis in our recommendation regarding PR is too strong on their size, leading to creation of PRs smaller necessaries which is not very efficient.

The associated change reduce that emphasis, explicitly mentioning that some dependencies upgrade to be grouped avoiding typical compatibility issues and bugs, and preventing people to focus on minimising number changes rather than delivering them.

What's the context?

Note

The recommendations in this repository are intended to share engineering best practices for all of Product & Engineering (P&E) in the open.

Some considerations:

• Should this really be an ADR in another repository?
• Have you sought review widely enough (Developer Experience, Heads of Engineering)?
• If it is security related, should you consult with Information Security?

[kelvin-chappell]

👍

[mxdvl]

I wonder if this applies to the NPM ecosystem?

Due to the number of different package managers, lockfile formats, prominent packages such as TypeScript not following SemVer, prominent packages such as Storybook not following peer dependencies declarations correctly and most of our internal project following our own recommendations of pinning dependencies, I fear this recommendation will cause more confusion and delays than speed up delivery and understanding¹.

Footnotes

1. I can provide links to all the sources to these claims in a private chat as I do not want to bring any public attention to the specific shortcomings above on a public forum. ↩

[mchv]

@mxdvl I think you should raise a PR with improvements on the wording/recommendation on the NPM ecosystem based on your experience and the issues you mentioned.