feat(swc): initial release

[tada5hi]

Rollup Plugin Name: swc

This PR contains:

• bugfix
• feature
• refactor
• documentation
• other

Are tests included?

• yes (bugfixes and features will not be merged without tests)
• no

Breaking Changes?

• yes (breaking changes will not be merged unless absolutely necessary)
• no

If yes, then include "BREAKING CHANGES:" in the first commit message body, followed by a description of what is breaking.

List any relevant issue numbers:
#1413

Description

[shellscape]

We'll need to disambiguate this plugin from https://github.com/rollup/plugins/tree/master/packages/sucrase within the README for the plugin. Also lets get the rest of the PR template filled in.

[tada5hi]

We'll need to disambiguate this plugin from https://github.com/rollup/plugins/tree/master/packages/sucrase within the README for the plugin. Also lets get the rest of the PR template filled in.

what do you mean by disambiguate the plugin? I don't really get the hint.
-> It uses swc instead of sucrase, but I think it is pointed out in the readme file, or?

You mean the missing issue number?

[tada5hi]

@shellscape can you have a look again? Tests are running through now.

[shellscape]

what do you mean by disambiguate the plugin?

That means using the readme to explain to people why they might use swc over sucrase, highlight differences, etc. This is a project where developer experience really matters, so when we're able to, it's good to give users info to make good choices.

[tada5hi]

what do you mean by disambiguate the plugin?

That means using the readme to explain to people why they might use swc over sucrase, highlight differences, etc. This is a project where developer experience really matters, so when we're able to, it's good to give users info to make good choices.

@shellscape You mean the root Readme.me of the whole rollup repository or?
Otherwise I think we should mention alternatives in the Readme.md of both plugins sucrase & swc and technically also in the babel Plugin readme, which is not the case in the moment, if I have seen this correctly. But I think we should address that in a followup pull request ( `docs(babel,sucrase,swc): xxx ) which I can also create with pleasure. For that we should release the swc Plugin to make the appropriate changes to the readme of all Plugin files

[shellscape]

because this (swc) is the newest plugin, that info only needs to be in the readme for it. don't overthink 😺

[tada5hi]

because this (swc) is the newest plugin, that info only needs to be in the readme for it. don't overthink 😺

@shellscape "Overthinker/Overthinking" is a word I hear not too rarely 🙈, but I like the feature and don't see it as a disadvantage ☺️.

My motive was to give the different transpilers the same treatment and that the respective audience aka viewers get the same overview of possible alternatives 😇.

[tada5hi]

@shellscape it would really be great to release this as soon as possible ✌️☺️
The desire for this also results from self-interest, since I just want to replace rollup based projects based on babel, due to the demonstrably much faster build time with swc. Currently I still redundantly copy the same logic, which I personally do not like and would like to avoid

[shellscape]

🙏 Please enhance your patience. This PR was put up 20 hours ago. I and the other maintainers will review when we're able to. General rule of thumb is to wait a week before pinging people. If you need to use this immediately you can publish the package to your own scope on NPM or use a symlink and workspace reference locally.

[tjenkinson]

Looks good. Few questions. Also please can you add a test that uses typescript?

[tada5hi]

🙏 Please enhance your patience. This PR was put up 20 hours ago. I and the other maintainers will review when we're able to. General rule of thumb is to wait a week before pinging people. If you need to use this immediately you can publish the package to your own scope on NPM or use a symlink and workspace reference locally.

i'm trying, but i'm also well aware that this is not one of my strengths 🙈 .

[tada5hi]

@shellscape can you have a look ?

[shellscape]

@tjenkinson @dasa have your concerns beed addressed?

[tjenkinson]

@shellscape we disagree on this thread so could do with a tie breaker on there first

other than that this LGTM :)

[dasa]

have your concerns beed addressed?

I think we still disagree on the supported Node version. Discussed at: #1412 (review)

[tada5hi]

Now that as far as I can survey, I think all concerns are resolved and we can complete the pull request @shellscape.

[tada5hi]

@shellscape min rollup version set to v3+ and swc is now peer-dep again. I think that should be the end of it now v:

[tada5hi]

@shellscape let me know if something is missing.

[tada5hi]

@shellscape any news ?

[alexgwolff]

any news ?

[tada5hi]

I would love to release it, but @shellscape has defined the policy that at least two other contributer/maintainer has approved the pull request. So unfortunately I have no choice but to wait :/

[tada5hi]

I think the concerns of @dasa and @tjenkinson have been resolved, maybe one of them will agree to give the last missing approval. Otherwise we have to wait for @shellscape ✌️

[shellscape]