GeezerVison

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.56%. Comparing base (790489c) to head (890f739).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #57663      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.58%   88.56%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         704      704              
  Lines      207774   207774              
  Branches    40028    40034       +6     
==========================================
- Hits       184065   184023      -42     
- Misses      15752    15799      +47     
+ Partials     7957     7952       -5     

@trivikr you can add the dont-land label yourself. I wonder if we could get some data from analytics regarding how many folks use this page to know if it's actually relevant.

It seems inconsistent to remove the documentation page when the bundled content is still being shipped.

That's debatable, we've never shipped any documentation for npm, having one for Corepack is arguably what's inconsistent.

you can add the dont-land label yourself

I added dont-land-on-24.x. I think this PR can wait till v25 release in October 2025 or further.

Even when Node.js 25.x is released I would still like to see a working placeholder under the latest URL which states that Corepack is no longer bundled

That's true. There are links to corepack documentation in the wild which point to the latest version of the doc in Node.js. And whoever lands on that page should get to know how they can continue using corepack. A 404 page will lead to loss of trust in any experimental features which Node.js introduces (current and future).

A 404 page will lead to loss of trust in any experimental features which Node.js introduces (current and future).

Would that be a bad thing? IMO users should not trust experimental features.

IMO users should not trust experimental features.

It's the trust wrt communication, and it can apply to stable features too.

Explaining it with an example makes it clear:

• User A: Did you hear the news? Node.js is removing corepack from it's distribution! It helped me a lot in transparently managing my package manager version per project. Now I need to find a different way.
• User B: I know! But that's okay. You can always install corepack from npm, i.e. just replace corepack enable command with npm i -g corepack and it'll continue to work. Also, it's not going to be removed from v24 which is supported till 2028-04-30
• User A: Oh, that's good. My application won't move off v24 till v28 goes LTS in October 2027. I still have time before I need to search for alternatives. I trust that Node.js core team or ecosystem will provide in-built replacement by that time.

When v24 releases on 2025-04-22 with 404 for corepack documentation

• User A: Hey, you mentioned that Node.js v24 was still going to have corepack. But I get 404 when trying to visit its documentation.
• User B: Oh, that's because they removed the documentation as corepack was experimental. It is still shipped with Node.js though, and you can continue to set corepack enable.
• User A: I don't know man. I lost trust in Node.js. I've a feeling that they might remove corepack before the promised date. I should immediately switch to installing corepack from npm.

The action after losing trust can be any of the following:

• I should never try any experimental feature provided in Node.js core from now on. Let other folks try it, and get it to stability.
• I should never trust any communication provided by Node.js team.
• I should switch to alternative Server JavaScript runtime.

When v24 releases on 2025-04-22 with 404 for corepack documentation

That's not going to happen though, this PR has the dont-land-on-v24.x PRs that should not land on the v24.x-staging branch and should not be released in v24.x. label

I liked this suggestion from @MikeMcC399 after my vote though

Even when Node.js 25.x is released I would still like to see a working placeholder under the latest URL which states that Corepack is no longer bundled.

This will help folks landing on corepack documentation from links shared in the ecosystem.
Instead of removing this page for v25+, we can remove it later maybe:

• v26+ (the next LTS without corepack)
• v27+ (halfway through corepack availability dropped in supported version)
• v29+ (near the end of corepack availability dropped in supported version)

I think v27+ would be a good midway choice, but v26+ is also okay.
Maybe only v25 and v26 documentation can update documentation to state corepack is no longer bundled.
One year should be good enough for existing users to migrate.

I created an alternative PR at #57813

I've opened nodejs/nodejs.org#7643 to address #57663 (comment)

As per discussion between @aduh95 and me on OpenJS Slack channel #nodejs-corepack, this PR can be closed.
The existing latest documentation was updated in #57825, and the redirect will be introduced as a follow-up to comment nodejs/nodejs.org#7643 (review)

Landed in f7ca0ae