On 2016-01-02 09:05 CET, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> One thing I *like* about submodules, is that they are optional. So if >>> I already have regular checkouts of libraries (and I do), I can use >>> them instead of those of make ext. >> >> IMO it would be better to have fixed versions of the dependencies which >> are used by each and every developer and packager. >> >> This is in my experience the basis of a solid and reliable build. >> > Yes, BUT, subtree makes it harder to distribute asdf independently > from other libraries, which is very, very, very bad. People who use > asdf for any serious purpose whatsoever already have their own library > layout, packaging and versioning.
I agree fully. Only developers/packagers should need the dependencies in ext/ and only for building and testing asdf and for nothing else. > The last thing they want is to deal with headaches because asdf has > another set of copies of some of the libraries that > non-deterministically may or may not appear first when recursively > scanning a tree. OK, since 3.1.5, the .cl-source-registry.cache should > make that not a problem anymore. Still a potential source of confusion > and space waste. > > One solution would be to have a "raw" repository for asdf alone, and a > separate repository asdf-dev that uses git subtree to provide asdf and > all its dependencies together. Two repositories are maybe too much hassle. We could also have a master branch which doesn't contain ext/* and is only updated with a new release. Users who just git clone https://gitlab.../asdf.git would end up with the latest stable version which doesn't contain the ext/ dependencies and therefore don't risk to use them when asdf is checked out in a tree which is scanned recursively. Developers and implementation vendors should be warned explicitly about this change and instructed to check out the correct branch before building/testing. And asdf-tools can check for existence of the dependencies in ext and warn the developers/packagers accordingly. Kambiz
