Bower and/or NPM availability

[yuhunglin]

Now that this repo's public, probably makes sense to publish.

[sgerrand]

Bower, yes; npm doesn't make sense though, as this does not contain
JavaScript.

[igoratron]

I think the general consensus among @FundingCircle/frontend people is there is no real reason why we should not be using npm for this. npm does already contain non javascript assets (e.g. bootstrap) and with their commitment to making npm an even more frontend friendly repository, there're few (if any) compelling arguments why we should use bower.

[yuhunglin]

Almost forgot about this issue 😄 It'd be handy to be able to stick with just one, multiple dependency management tools makes life not so great. @igoratron @paddyo @sgerrand Does it make sense to rally around publishing this up to NPM?

[sgerrand]

@yuhunglin: Do we need to publish this package to npm? It can be pulled from a git:// or https:// URL.

[sgerrand]

@igoratron: Will you or someone else in @FundingCircle/frontend take ownership of moving frontend assets from bower to npm?

[igoratron]

I can but I am not sure if we need to do that at the moment. The current setup works and I don't think consolidating the frontend assets under npm has any significant benefits. We'll probably just slowly move to npm as we go and refactor current apps (during the borrower refactor for example) but I don't think this has a high priority.

As for publishing to npm, I am not too keen on that. What would be the benefit? I feel this repository contains components that are very specific to FC and offers very little to outside developers.

[sgerrand]

I feel this repository contains components that are very specific to FC and offers very little to outside developers.

Agreed. Hosting on GitHub is more than enough.

[yuhunglin]

👍 I can't remember the context on why I brought this up in publishing it to NPM so Github only hosting sounds good to me. Can we consolidate on NPM then?