Ok, great! We will discuss this some more and see what we can come up with.

 - Daniel

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 2:18 PM, orta therox <orta.the...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same, yeah 👍
>> On 14 Oct 2016, at 21:21, Eloy Durán via swift-build-dev 
>> <swift-build-...@swift.org> wrote:
>>> 5. Given that many people agree there are two workflows (we ourselves had 
>>> talked about this a lot when writing the proposal, but didn't put it in), 
>>> we felt it makes sense to consider adding that as an explicit declaration 
>>> *somewhere*.
>>> @Eloy, @Orta: Suppose we had a semantic notion of which packages were 
>>> intended to be "top-level" versus used as a dependency, and we chose our 
>>> defaults accordingly (in this case, we would orient workflows towards 
>>> pinning by default in the top-level case, in the used as a dependency case 
>>> we would orient away from it, e.g. warning you if you checked it in). What 
>>> would you think of such a design?
>> Oooooooh, I like it.
>> Even though I would probably still pin/lock personally, I think this default 
>> combined with the explicit declaration strikes a perfect balance in 
>> trade-offs 👍
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-build-dev mailing list
>> swift-build-...@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-build-dev

swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to