
This in an agnostic way, providing essentially the following: ("archetypes") for your common use cases across multiple projects.īuilder is not opinionated, although archetypes are and typically dictateįile structure, standard configurations, and dev workflows.

#Installbuilder get environment variable how to
Guide on how to abandon the use of Builder in a project and revert everythingįrom archetypes back to vanilla npm package.json scripts, dependencies So much so, that we include a section in this You Can Give Up: One of the main goals of builder is to remain veryĬlose to a basic npm workflow.Still stay the same and allow a specific repo's deviation from "completely off Builder solves this byĪllowing fine grain task overriding by name, where the larger composed tasks This works great when everything is within the workflow but fallsĪpart once you want to be "just slightly" different. Flexibility: There are a number of meta tools for controlling JavaScript.Project which all share a nearly-identical dev / prod / build workflow.

For example, we have anĮver-expanding set of related repos for our Single Point of Control: A way to define a specific set of tasks /Ĭonfigs / etc.The rough goals and motivations behind the project. The rest of this page willĭive into the details and machinations of the tool, but first here are a few of

"archetypes" to provide central sets of package.json scripts tasks, andĭependencies and devDependencies for those tasks. Builder is "almost" npm, but provides for off-the-shelf You're managing many (say 5-50) very similar repositories.Įnter Builder. But a project-specific package.json simply doesn't scale when Npm is fantastic for controlling tasks (via scripts) and general project Builder takes your npm tasks and makes them composable, controllable from
