ha, legal! thats why but thats not a technical reason. =) we could argue all day about subjective things like architecture but generally speaking in the node community the feeling is that shrinkwrap is harmful … we do not have a technical issue here, nor have we, but we do have deployment complexity and issues with shrinkwrap so I stand by the lazy consensus here that this is YAGNI
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > + 1 leave it in npm package > + 1 take it out from git > > Technical reasons: > 1. better architecture to have all end user use the same version of all the > code. > 2. when we test here in ibm and install cordova from npm we know that all > testers are testing the same code, > Legal related reason: > 1. We need to create a package with cordova and all other 100 npm node > module dependencies it's easier to identify what npm package versions we > need to legally bless and re-distribute. > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > So I think its neat we had a vote but was there a technical reason for > it? > > Nope. Lets kill it. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > @Brian shrinkwrap was implemented in the release process because it was > > > discuss in the mailing list and agreed, no -1 votes > > > http://markmail.org/thread/j6bv5bk5ndlokobj > > > > > > can someone show me a jira issue or contributor having problems with > > having > > > npm-shrinkwrap.json in the npm package only? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Santana > > > <csantan...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > <csantan...@gmail.com> >
