opened
LukeSheard
username_0
Through testing internally I think it's become apparent that we need to be able to support different "verticals" within the same repository - this might be separate teams who don't share the same scope within their packages. 

We discussed this previously and said that we would have to be strict about the implementation - I've done a bit of a PoC for what this could look like. The rules work as follows: 
1. `workspaces` in the modular `root` `package.json` must either have `[ "packages/*"] ]` or `[ "packages/*/*" ]`.
2. In the single `*` namespace end. 
3. In the multi scope case...
    *  validate that each package name in the "scope" directory name matches.
    * validate that each package name matches the directory name which contains it.

This will enable the repo to scale across multiple teams and other `modular` based teams to merge repositories without changing their scope. It also means that `CODEOWNERS` can work more easily, since you can assign `packages/team/*` to a particular group.
Proposal: Enable multi-team-workspaces
issue
created
NMinhNguyen
username_1
I had to read the code to understand what was meant by 'scope' because my initial thinking (just reading the PR description) was it's to do with [npm scopes]( https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v6/using-npm/scope) which would make sense given this is in the context of packages. Because of this, I'd be very careful when introducing terminology that can be easily misinterpreted (because of existing conventions).
comment
created
threepointone
username_2
I made an RFC that proposes a looser approach https://github.com/jpmorganchase/modular/issues/240, and associated implications. 

I also started working on a branch that tackles the implementation, and have already gotten pretty far with it. I'd recommend closing this, I'm happy to take this on and hopefully ship it relatively soon.
comment
created
threepointone
username_2
Closing this for https://github.com/jpmorganchase/modular/pull/246, thank you for getting it here!
comment