Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Support file #220
Support file #220
Changes from 20 commits
f3dcec1
cabeb86
3a5f9bd
436323e
a02a75d
3c57676
b6194c8
9dce8fd
3074253
a123ecc
3963111
24afbff
14895db
3683043
9a98e45
abb5f20
51bf8e8
c61e3d1
b625dcc
9d4eabb
c06ae49
524d4fd
6472093
ef21ef1
2294647
ae80412
ff01415
54f5b49
317a94b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
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.
This seems to expect that the project is a downloadable package?
What if the project is instead provided over eg. HTTP? Then a
/.well-known/<something>
would be preferable?Also: Has it been considered for such a file to also be discoverable through a link relation similar to
rel-license
links? Like a<link rel="backing" href="<url-to-a-backing-json-somewhere>.json" />
on the home page of the project?Or is it intended that all discovery of this data should just happen through a published package and the tools that interact with this package and that there is no use for eg. a browser extension to surface this very same information by making it discoverable on the web?
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.
The latter paragraph. The target audience for the information is the developers consuming the package, not anybody interacting with it via a website.
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.
The scope here is purposefully limited to packages (with a strong focus on node packages in the npm registry). That said, I do not see any reason not to take the json format here and publish it as
./well-known/support.json
or any other version you mention. I don't think we should add that to the spec at this time, but it seems a fine use of the shared schema.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 need to extend the donations field to allow for identifiers that would allow direct donations to the project. I'm coming at this from the context of my project Sustainus: https://github.com/lastmjs/sustainus
Essentially what I'm telling people to do right now is to put a field called
ethereum
at the root level of their package.json. This field's value is an Ethereum name or address, which allows funds to be sent directly to that address. Any application can parse the Ethereum information and send funds as it pleases, so it is not specific to Sustainus.I think this would be useful for a number of cryptocurrencies, most notably Bitcoin and Ethereum, but we should prepare for others. This could also work for other payment systems like PayPal, or who knows even bank accounts (not likely).
Perhaps it could look like this:
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.
As I said on twitter, interesting use case and I think it should be supported in this spec. In this thread we decided to merge and then handle specific issues like this in follow up PRs. Would you be willing to wait until that happens and then open up a suggestion PR?
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.
Of course, I guess just let me know when and what to do and I'll do it
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.
This is concerning to me. If we codify Open Collective in this spec, then what happens when another platform comes along? Do we add all platforms?
Seems to me a better way would be to remove this and recommend this go under "sponsored":
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.
Also, where’s GitHub sponsors and tidelift, the two that i get funded by? :-) Wesley’s suggestion seems best.
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'm happy with the generic "sponsored" too.
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.
Update 👍
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.
Is the first sentence of this paragraph is the same as the one above? Maybe this should just be one section:
Thoughts?
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 like this rearrange + the addition: