If we're going down the road of KISS, why not require all packages to be in direct sub-directories? Is that too constraining?
I've read the proposal and I'm also concerned about the potential complexity. But I also like, as Daniel has said, that it allows the naive solution - simple subdirectories for each package to work without learning a new file syntax. On a side note, do we really need a "subpackage" argument for the Package initializer and not roll everything under "package"? David. > On 13 Nov 2016, at 06:54, Daniel Dunbar via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Nov 12, 2016, at 9:43 PM, Russ Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 12, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Dunbar via swift-build-dev >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm reposting a request for feedback on my proposal for extending SwiftPM >>> to support multiple packages inside one repository (i.e. "monorepo" >>> support, although it is a misnomer in this use case). >>> https://github.com/ddunbar/swift-evolution/blob/multi-package-repos/proposals/NNNN-swiftpm-multi-package-repos.md >>> >>> I would like to move this proposal forward so we can start on an >>> implementation, even if we need to refine it over time, but I was hoping to >>> get at least some concrete feedback first. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Daniel >> >> >> It seems like you’re going through contortions to deal with arbitrary >> directory layouts and some odd consequences fall out of that decision. Not >> being able to deterministically detect non-unique sub-packages is one. >> >> Why not just require a top-level Package.swift that explicitly specifies the >> sub-packages? The name for the sub-package should be in the main package >> manifest. You’d gain the ability to import all the sub-packages in one go; >> importing the root package without any sub-packages specified automatically >> imports all sub-packages. This also allows library authors to organize a >> library into sub-packages later without breakage. Come up with a convention, >> e.g. a sub-package is in “/subpackageName” but allow overriding that >> default. That allows reorganization if needed but the convention should work >> for most libraries. > > Mostly because I am concerned this doesn't scale well to *very* large > repositories, in which commits to that file would be "contentious" (in the > lock contention sense, not subject to debate sense). Of course, this argument > is a little bogus as the current proposal doesn't scale that great either > since we have to discover the packages (although I believe we can probably do > a good job of caching this information). > > It certainly would simplify the implementation & proposal to have this. > > The other reason is it is yet another thing for people to maintain (and > remember the syntax for). Most repos are small enough that I think the > current proposal would perform fine and have a tendency to do what people > might naively expect (even if they didn't really think about why). On the > other hand, this file is likely to be quite static, so I'm not sure that is a > very important issue. > > I was already on the fence on this, but I hadn't considered the benefits you > mention of allowing import of the package w/ no sub package specifier to mean > import of all sub-packages. That tips me a little more towards thinking maybe > a better proposal is to KISS and require this in some root file (whether or > not that root file is itself a package manifest or a different kind of file > is another question, you assume it would be the regular package manifest but > I don't think it *need* be, and there is some value in not having any nesting > relationship amongst packages). > > - Daniel > >> A top-level Package.swift would also allow immediate detection of non-unique >> sub-packages, etc. Also if you are using things like git submodules, >> subtree, or some other mechanism that ends up putting package files in your >> source tree you don’t automatically re-export that package unless you take >> explicit action. >> >> >> I like the idea in general. >> >> >> Russ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
