kidding aside if the community feels strongly to take it out from both npm and git, I would respect the decision and shut up ! I live and die by the community :-)
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's working fine today being present in the npm package, I don't think we > should remove it just because of a "feeling" > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> 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> >> > >> > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > <csantan...@gmail.com> > -- Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
