Samuel Reed

Agreed re: shipping const. IMO, there's not going to be any way, with current UglifyJS (perhaps Closure is better) to eliminate dead code only with `envify` (by setting NODE_ENV =...

Well, technically if we just changed our uglify step to replace `__DEV__`, we'd be golden. But the real problem is users installing the npm package and doing their own bundling/minification....

UglifyJS [PR is in](https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2/issues/928), if it is merged I'll change this to use `/** @const */ var __DEV__` instead of `const __DEV__`.

I've rebased this in case anyone's still interested: a brief history of where this is at: 1. In early 2016, I introduced `/** @const */` syntax that UglifyJS2 could recognize,...

@gaearon And that includes SSR? Will all the files be individually compiled or will you be essentially `require()`ing a bundle?

At the very least the chrome.app target could be dropped. There could then be a local target for linux/windows/osx, not just osx. It could also obviate the need for docker,...

Could be useful as an option: e.g. if `require('puppeteer')` doesn't throw, allow a configuration type of `chrome.puppeteer`.

We are seeing far higher RAM usage in the new 0.93 beta than in previous versions, 2x or more. We are investigating but it is high priority for us as...

I think that's a great idea! That would be a good way to help testability. I could use help on it.

That'd be great. I know how it is. I can't promise that I'll be all that active either, but I am interested in merging in the changes from [Lunars](https://github.com/lunars/nikola) as...