Eloy Durán

@bestander Could you tell me what/if I should be doing next to receive feedback on this?

While I do think having an explicit way to mark peer dependencies as optional is a good thing to have, that issue seems largely orthogonal to mine. My proposal is...

> I'm not convinced by the example given of the version constraint being too restrictive. The library author has the ability to make whatever restriction they want on the version...

> If we decide to add an `optionalPeerDependencies` field or support an custom version range syntax for optional `peerDependencies`, would we still want this new `ignoredPeerDependencies` field as well? >...

(Btw, I now realise that I never stated that I’d love to work on this, but didn’t want to start before this was agreed upon and how it would work....

I like that, moving this to `yarnrc`, it makes the point of this being for project authors, as opposed to library authors, much clearer.

> That format looks pretty good, but it is missing the version range. Including the range would be useful in the case where the warning is appearing due to a...

Sure thing 👍 Will do this next week when I’m back home.

Alright, updated as per the discussion and added a few more unresolved questions.

Hey all, no rush on my side –I have plenty to do– but just wondering what the next step is so that I’m not accidentally waiting on nothing?