NPM should learn from Linux distribution package managers.

Have a branch called testing, and packages stay in testing for few weeks, after which they go to stable. That is how many Linux distributions handle packages. It would have prevented many of these.

Advising every user of npm/pnpm to change their settings and set their own cooldown periods is not a real choice.

▲

Levitating 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not all distributions work with a staging repository, and it's not really intended for this purpose either.

Besides there's always a way to immediately push a new version to stable repositories. You have to in order to deal with regressions and security fixes.

	▲	Ciantic 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I know not all, but Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora does, and while the intended purpose of multi-stage releases is not necessarily security but stability, it still does help up with security too. Because third parties can look and scan the dependencies while they are still not in stable. Most of the supply chain vulnerabilities that ended up in the NPM would have been mitigated with having mandatory testing / stable branches, of course there needs to be some sort of way to skip the testing but that would be rather rare and cumbersome and audited, like it is in Linux distributions too.

▲

ivanjermakov 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

NPM is one big AUR, where anyone can submit arbitrary unverified code. The difference is that AUR is intentionally harder to use to prevent catastrophic one-line installs.

	▲	Levitating 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is a "AUR" now just how we name unaudited software repositories? Just to note, if we're talking about Linux Distributions. There's also COPR in Fedora, OBS for OpenSUSE (and a bunch of other stuff, OBS is awesome), Ubuntu has PPAs. And I am sure there's many more similar solutions.