open-feature / open-feature/go-sdk
Consider moving artifacts into sub-packages
Open
needs discussion
v2
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 249
- Forks
- 61
- Avg merge
- 2d 10h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 20
Description
> Potentially consider rearranging packages. For example, the SDK has a noop provider, an in-memory provider, a testing provider, and soon a multi-provider. Should all of these live under openfeature/providers in their own packages? Or are we OK with keeping that structure as is?
Consider moving some functions/artifacts into sub-packages.
Contributor guide
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.