Would you accept a Homebrew formula contribution for `mb`?

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Hi team — quick question before I do the work.

For my own use I'd find it easier to install + maintain `@metabase/cli` via Homebrew rather than as a global npm package (consistency with the rest of my dev tooling on macOS). Happy to write the formula and the PR myself — wanted to check what you'd prefer before starting.

A few paths I see, in order of how much I think you'd benefit:

1. **Official Metabase Homebrew tap** (`metabase/homebrew-tap`) — you'd own release cadence, formula updates ship alongside CLI releases, users do `brew install metabase/tap/mb-cli`. Highest ongoing maintenance load on you but cleanest user experience. I'd contribute the initial formula + a release-automation script if helpful.

2. **PR into homebrew-core** — once the CLI clears their acceptance criteria (notable + stable). Users do `brew install mb-cli`. Lower maintenance load on you, but homebrew-core can be slow to review and pickier about npm-wrapper formulas.

3. **You'd prefer I just maintain a personal tap** — totally fine, I'll do that and won't bother you again.

4. **You'd prefer npm-only** — also totally fine, just let me know and I'll close this. I get the case: npm is the canonical distribution, brew-wrapping it adds a version-pinning step you'd have to keep in sync.

For #1 and #2 the formula is short (npm-wrapper formulas usually are), so the work is mostly the initial setup + a small CI hook to bump versions. I'd write all of it.

What works for you?

This issue is awaiting a maintainer decision between an official tap, homebrew-core, a personal tap, or npm-only distribution. If a Homebrew contribution is approved, start by reviewing the @metabase/cli packaging and the proposed formula and release-automation setup; done means the chosen distribution path and its maintenance responsibilities are accepted.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.