> On May 10, 2016, at 2:19 AM, Dan Appel via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 to `swift package` being a little too verbose. However, I like the > alternative `swift pm`/`swiftpm` (as noted in the proposal) even less. I have > already been referring to the package manager as SPM, so IMO that name does > not lose out on any clarity while also allowing it to be terse enough for > every day use. > > I would not be against having both `spm` and `swift package` as Honza > suggested.
+ 1 to the proposal in general and also to adding the `spm` alias. > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:50 PM Honza Dvorsky via swift-build-dev > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I agree with the review feedback so far, it's a good proposal. But just as > David mentioned, I think a `spm` command, which would just be an alias for > `swift package` would work really well. `spm build`, `spm test` all feel very > in line with existing tools like gem, npm, pod etc. I think those ~3 letter > commands are very short for a good reason. And with the entrance of Swift on > the server, having to write `swift package X` right next to the rest of the > "3-letter" tools could feel like an oversight. > > I absolutely agree that for the sake of discoverability and clarity, the > `swift package` command should be the canonical way. And in addition to that, > I suggest we add `spm` to better fit into the CLI-driven world and save > people quite lot of typing. > > Honza > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM David Hart via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > +1 This proposal makes the package manager a first-class tool, instead of a > set of command options. > > > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > > to Swift? > > It should be addressed before it goes public. > > > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > Yes. > > > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > I'm used to using npm, pod, gem, bundle. So I think I would have preferred a > spm command. It would also have made commands shorter to type. But I guess > the proposal makes more sense for Swift. > > > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > > reading, or an in-depth study? > > Serious read. > > > More information about the Swift evolution process is available at > > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md > > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md> > > > > Thank you, > > > > - Daniel > > Review Manager > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-evolution mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-evolution mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > swift-build-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-build-dev > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-build-dev> > -- > Dan Appel > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
