Code-splitting guide missing commonly sought after answers.

[rafde]

I was looking for the vendor common chunk example to reference and noticed that a lot of useful information was removed in 15f8155#diff-97b9e4722b09b5046bf7756c344112cdL19
I can't find any examples or reference to where it was moved.
Can that commit be reverted, as it offers nothing that people are actually looking for when visited.

[rafde]

atleast reference https://webpack.js.org/plugins/commons-chunk-plugin/#passing-the-minchunks-property-a-function in a prominent title that leads to that example.

[rouzbeh84]

@rafde I've gone ahead and noted that this is a commonly used feature of code splitting and reference the Explicit vendor chunk explaining how to do this.

@skipjack I noticed a next steps section mentioning lazy-loading and caching. should there be a more robust optimization guide if there isn't one?

[skipjack]

I understand your frustration and I see that you were one of the authors of code-splitting-libraries. First off, I did credit all the previous authors in the new guide. Second of all, I had meant to ping those authors for review before merging #1338 but forgot -- so for that I apologize. Note that there was a 122-comment-long conversation on that PR prior to merging so you shouldn't think that we took the decision to make those changes lightly.

Here are a few reasons why the changes were made:

• There were no basic examples on the various approaches to code splitting itself (Guides - Code splitting seems to miss a basic example #1333).
• Much, if not all, of the documentation discussed in the previous articles was in relation to caching -- for which there is already a separate guide (that still needs to be reviewed and re-worked -- Guides - Review and Simplify #1258 and Guides - Explain Hash Changes in Caching Guide #652).
• A lot of the documentation from code-splitting-async was really detailed reference documentation and didn't make sense in a guide.
• All three of the previous guides were completely out of sync with the examples we're trying to build on from getting-started onwards (Guides - Review and Simplify #1258).

Can that commit be reverted, as it offers nothing that people are actually looking for when visited.
webpack docs are being neutered...

I think if you really think about it and see my comments above, you'll realize these comments are a bit overboard. I'll review @rouzbeh84's PR now to see if we can get a short-term fix in and note it in #1258 so we don't forget to address it. Again, as I said on gitter, please be a little more thoughtful in your approach. Just because your use case is splitting out vendor code, doesn't mean code splitting can't be used for a variety of other things. Anything missing from the caching guide now should be filled in soon -- if you want, I can even ping you for a review once it's in progress.

As for "the plan" you mentioned on gitter -- please see #1380. This is something we've discussed offline for awhile now but didn't have time to add until tonight.

[rafde]

please be a little more thoughtful in your approach

Bringing in the gitter discussions has no context. That's why I made this issue, so I am going to focus why I made this issue.

One of the things I noticed people complain about webpack is about documentation.

So when I saw the changes I thought to myself: There goes one of the most looked at webpack question on stackoverflow.
When people ask webpack questions, I want to direct them to the doc site.
I looked over all you links and #1333 make sense as an issue, but I don't know if that overall issue really dwarfs what the majority of the people focus on finding relative to that stack overflow question I referenced. Maybe analytics can shed some light.

Anyhow, do what you gotta do. I stopped directing people to the doc site and use @bebraw 's guide for anything extra that I want to start getting into regarding webpack. He does a better job with guides since it's his 🍞 and butter.

☮️ and 🍀

Self closing this discussion.