I'm w/ Mike on this. No idea why we started using shrinkwrap, its always had a flaky rep, and if we don't remember why then I'm guessing we might have decided to use it for reasons that may have been more defensive than actually solving a problem we had. Lets turf it. If bugs get reported then we can bring it back.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH) < > panar...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > If we do have shrinkwrap in git at all times, who would be responsible > for updating not only the versions of our dependencies, but also the > dependencies of these dependencies? > > One thought on this is that the release manager could do it at the > beginning of a new release on master, separate from the tagged/branched > release that is being packaged for release. Similar to how we add a "-dev" > suffix, that's when there could be a systemic refresh. And of course, if a > developer finds a technical driver to refresh the dependents and shrinkwrap > in the middle of a dev cycle, it would happen there too. > > > Why should cordova-lib and cordova-plugman not have shrinkwraps? Not all > tools use cordova-cli as a way to build cordova apps. There were also > discussions about using cordova-lib being the public API to build apps. If > that is the case, judging by our shrinkwrap philosophy, we need that file > on all repos that we say are public API. > > My thinking is that since a shrinkwrap is fully recursive, only the > top-level package needs to have the shrinkwrap. If there is a separate > third-party app that uses cordova-lib, they can choose whether or not to > have a shrinkwrap, and it wouldn't be partially forced on them by its > presence inside cordova-lib. Well, and it's also a pain for us to generate > shrinkwraps inside our own dependencies.
