added a header for usage with process.env

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;

[mwarger]

added a header for usage with process.env to separate section from 'current lifecycle event' and make it easier to find

[zkat]

I'm not really sure this header is needed -- reading this section a few times, it seems clear that the section under your header is directly relevant to its original location, and I think I'd much prefer keeping the docs as they are, in this case?

[terinjokes]

The Twitter thread that spawned this was in relation to the "package.json vars" section, and the lack of a usage example.

If we're going to be changing the docs, I agree with @zkat that creating a new header here doesn't make sense.

Perhaps add an example to the other section showing off npm_package_name or npm_package_version?

[mwarger]

I added the header because that paragraph (the one I put the header above) seemed to apply to all the previous paragraphs. The flattening of the object structure with the subsequent description of how to use it.

That's a good point, though - I will try your suggestion. Thank you for the feedback.

[neverett]

For consistency with the other sections, I would recommend moving the example up to follow the previous paragraph, and changing the language a bit. Here's how that might look:

The package.json fields are tacked onto the npm_package_ prefix. So, for instance, if you had {"name":"foo", "version":"1.2.5"} in your package.json file, then your package scripts would have the npm_package_name environment variable set to "foo", and the npm_package_version set to "1.2.5". You can access these variables in your code with process.env.npm_package_name and process.env.npm_package_version, and so on for other fields.

[neverett]

One comment on the placement and wording of the example -- let me know what you think.

[mwarger]

Good call - I made that change. Thanks all for the feedback.

[mwarger]

This was just a text change - can the CI be kicked off again? I don't think my change caused this...

[zkat]

👍 changes look good to me. Thank you!

And don't worry about CI. It's not your fault ^_^;;