> On Oct 14, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Paul Cantrell <cantr...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the late arrival to this thread. Comments below…
>> On Oct 14, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daniel Dunbar via swift-build-dev 
>> <swift-build-...@swift.org> wrote:
>> What this proposal about is in one sense being able to export and share 
>> those pins.
> This is a crucial and clarifying insight. It should be in the proposal! Near 
> the top.

Good idea, will incorporate it.

>> 2. Huon, Alexis, and I all agree we should never *inherit* pins by default.
> Indeed. Pins should be only be about sharing specific versions within a 
> development team — not with client packages / apps. What’s pinned in Vegas 
> stays in Vegas. Publishing pins to other projects would be nonsensical.
>> 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?
> I’m puzzled. If a package’s pinning does not affect any other package that 
> uses it, why should the defaults be different? A library will still suffer 
> from all the “works for me” problems an app might.
> Is the rationale that not pinning libraries encourages accidental testing of 
> new versions of a library’s dependencies as they arrive? Or is there another 
> rationale for having different defaults?

I'll defer to this comment (linked from someone else earlier in the thread), 
which happens to match up with my perspective:

 - Daniel

> Cheers, P

swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to