But why? The range changes are superficial, and because it's a monorepo deps vs devDeps doesn't really mean anything. If anything, maybe we talk about what it means in an issue.

I appreciate all of the work you're taking on here, but let's chat about some things before you dive right on into it. We're a team here, and the onslaught (in a goodish way) today is bananas. We're not likely to be able to approve and merge them all in a day (a week?) and because we're a team you've unloaded a lot of burden at once. A steady pace would be more welcome.

It's inconsistent to have some as dependencies and some as devDependencies, so this brings greater consistency.

There are also several packages with major version bumps.

The majority of the PRs are simply bumping the TypeScript version. I'm not quite sure what is required to review those. I did mention in #679 that it would create quite a few PRs, but that was the suggestion that was made to me.

I'd recommend going back and rereading what I wrote again, and absorb the message in that reply.

Bumping majors in the root package.json doesn't trigger any CI (that's a flaw) and needs to be checked manually. I'm fairly certain that I've mentioned this before, but just in case my grey matter is failing me - repo-level changes need to be discussed ahead of time and shouldn't be pushed through on a pull request without discussion. We've got a few good reasons for that, but the largest is ensured stability. We should also talk about which we want to represent workspace dependencies as a team before a PR is made.

For the active contributors here, we view this repo as a team sport, rather than lone-wolf contributors. That means we need to talk about things that affect every plugin before we push code.

Ok, I thought your earlier suggestion regarding repo-level changes was only referring to changes which would affect the plugin distributions. These changes are only for development tools and don't actually affect the code that end users receive from the individual plugins, so I didn't think the earlier statement applied here

I agree we should try to fix the CI issue if possible. It seems like that would address a lot of the manual review work, etc.