Matt Mayer

What about the possibility of taking an external replacement like https://www.npmjs.com/package/enforce-unique and moving it within the faker-js org, but as a separate package/repo?

Let's just make sure we have very good documentation explaining how to migrate from using the existing method to a third-party package.

i went ahead and added some documentation and suggested alternatives direct on this branch. Feedback welcome.

This will also need a migration guide snippet. Hopefully it can be quite short now and just link to the unique guide page.

Sorry I don't totally understand if this is a internal change or would affect consumers. If I had existing code like ```js const { faker } = require("@faker-js/faker") const email...

Provided it doesn't *need* to change that's fine. Anything which would *require* consumers to change the syntax of every call to faker they are currently making in existing code would...

i think its also important to make sure that tree-shaking actually works after making this change! This is going to require a LOT of changes to the code; we don't...

> const { fakerCoreEN, email } = require("@faker-js/faker") > const email = email(fakerCoreEN) > // This is a few KB smaller after bundling than the old code (~620KB? vs ~600KB?)...

As this is a big change and will likely need several preparatory pull requests before it gets to the point where you can actually use individual tree-shakable functions, perhaps it...

I think I prefer something in markdown where you can list out high level goals in plain English . Not having to link lots of tickets, add specific dates etc.