I share Matt's concern. I'd be bummed if I wanted to release a new version of a module that depended on 0.8 features, but doing so would mean most of my users on 0.6 got a broken version installed by default with only a warning to dissuade them. Especially if there were perfectly good older versions sitting in npm that worked on 0.6.
Maybe npm could issue a warning on maximum version failures, but keep the old behavior on minimum version failures. That's getting kinda complex, though. I wonder if this isn't better solved by guiding the community towards removing upper limits from engines in all but the most specific cases? On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:22:39 PM UTC-7, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > I'm -1 for reducing it to a warning. By doing that you're taking the > opposite assumption, that the person who wrote the package doesn't know > what he/she's doing. What if the package uses domains and puts in engines: > ">=0.8.0" ? By reducing it to a warning you're letting people's code fail > at runtime instead of at install time. > > -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
