Skip to content

move assets into this repo #260

@Rich-Harris

Description

@Rich-Harris

Edit: the original issue is now fixed because we're not using cross-origin isolation everywhere anymore, but there's still a valuable discussion to be had about where assets should live.

I think it makes sense for assets used in blog posts and the like to be in this repo:

  • they're sensibly colocated (colocating stuff sensibly is 90% of making a codebase maintainable)
  • they become part of the build, which means they get immutable URLs, and in theory we could optimise stuff
  • fewer moving parts, less stuff to keep track of
  • less friction involved in adding assets
  • when something is no longer used, we can confidently delete it

The only real counter-argument I've heard is 'but the assets will be part of this repo forever because git remembers everything', to which my response is... so? It's not like we're talking terabytes. It only really affects cloning, and a) you don't do that very often, b) bandwidth is plentiful, c) if it's not, git clone --depth 1 is a thing.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions