Add section about installation using Yarn

[julkue]

Btw: Is there a reason why some links are written in HTML and others in Markdown?

[jquerybot]

Thank you for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a jQuery Foundation project, if so we need you to sign our Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit http://contribute.jquery.org/CLA/ to sign.

After you signed, the PR is checked again automatically after a minute. If there's still an issue, please reply here to let us know.

---

If you've already signed our CLA, it's possible your git author information doesn't match your CLA signature (both your name and email have to match), for more information, check the status of your CLA check.

[dmethvin]

Btw: Is there a reason why some links are written in HTML and others in Markdown?

The links for the files have the download attribute to hint the browser that they should be saved rather than displayed. We got a lot of questions about why the code was displaying and how to save it. 😸

[dmethvin]

Would it make sense to combine the Yarn and npm sections? The actual files are coming from the same place and this might make people think they're not.

[julkue]

@dmethvin Agreed, I've just merged these two sections.

[mgol]

I don't think we should mention Yarn, it's too early for that. There are a lot of alternative clients of the npm registry (e.g. ied), pnpm and we have to consider that every extra piece of information added to the page makes it harder for people to find information they're looking for. So far Yarn is something new & experimental; people installing it are people liking experiments and most likely familiar with how it works and that it uses the npm registry so all the packages are there.

If it turns out that in a year or two it gets quite popular & widely used then sure, let's mention it, but we shouldn't rush into anything.

[julkue]

@mgol I respect your personal opinion, but I have a different. Yarn earned over 15,000 stars in just 4 months, the ones you named have not even 2,000 (and ied exists for a long time). pnpm is not a full client, since it just replaces npm install. Also big companies like Facebook are already using Yarn. Last but not least Yarn will probably be named in future developer tutorials and therefore should be mentioned on jquery.com too.

[kswedberg]

@julmot what is the likelihood that a developer who is using yarn at this point doesn't already know that npm install can be swapped out for yarn add for any npm package? I understand that yarn is suddenly very popular, but I think we're getting ahead of ourselves if we feel the need to include instructions for it everywhere we refer to npm.

My guess is that people who are using yarn at this point already know how to use it, and those who aren't using it don't need us to offer yet another way to download jQuery. Seems adding yarn instructions wouldn't do much more than signal to those "in the know" that we're hip to the new technology.

p.s. I'm using yarn and so far I really enjoy it (despite having to deal with some bugs, which is to be expected at this stage of a project's development).

[gnarf]

people installing it are people liking experiments and most likely familiar with how it works and that it uses the npm registry so all the packages are there.

It does seem a bit redundant to specify yarn add jquery at this point. Yarn users know that they can just yarn add instead of npm install.

I'm not opposed to adding a callout to yarnpkg.com as an alternate package manager, I just think this takes up a lot of space with it's own code block.

[julkue]

@kswedberg

Seems adding yarn instructions wouldn't do much more than signal to those "in the know" that we're hip to the new technology.

I partially agree with you here. If you're going to merge this, Yarn would get a positive reputation and it would point out that there's an alternative for those who don't know it yet. So the question is, do you find it a great alternative? If so, mentioning could also make others happy. You decide, I'm out.

[mgol]

I'm not opposed to adding a callout to yarnpkg.com as an alternate package manager, I just think this takes up a lot of space with it's own code block.

If it's just one sentence (something like "You can also try yarn" with a link to https://yarnpkg.com/) then I agree it doesn't introduce a lot of noise and I'd be open to considering that.

And for the record, I agree with @kswedberg in that I like yarn and I experiment with it at home and one of the stars @julmot mentioned is from me. :)

[kswedberg]

@julmot whether or not they merge your PR, your contribution is appreciated. Thanks a lot for caring enough about the project to submit the pull request!

[dmethvin]

Yarn seems to be well enough established that we could land this perhaps? The only change I'd like to see is to add "or Yarn" to the section heading.

[mgol]

@dmethvin Yarn requires a different command so if we just add "or Yarn" which is then followed by an npm install jquery command, it will be confusing. I'd add sth like:

or Yarn:
yarn add jquery

It looks short enough.

[dmethvin]

I meant s/ ## Downloading jQuery using npm/ ## Downloading jQuery using npm or Yarn/

[mgol]

Yes but with the added code block for yarn add jquery, right?

[dmethvin]

Yep, the current PR changes with the updated headline. The second commit got rid of the duplication so it's basically just the command now.

[mgol]

Ah, you were commenting wrt the existing PR state. I agree then, it's good with the header change. 👍

[mgol]

@julmot could you sign our new CLA?

[julkue]

There you go

[mgol]

Thanks! If you update the header as @dmethvin suggested it's good to land.

[julkue]

@mgol Sorry, but you'll have to merge it and do the changes afterwards. I've dropped the fork a long time ago.

[mgol]

@julmot No problem, I've modified the header myself and landed the PR. Thanks and sorry it took so long!