+1 Overall. I am not in favor of automatic pinning being the default behavior but it isn't such a big issue.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Anders Bertelrud via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > On 2016-11-28, at 09.44, David Sweeris via swift-build-dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Does the pinning info have to be in an optional file? Would it be better > to have it be an optional part of the manifest? There'd be one less file to > carry around. > > > One conceptual reason to keep the pinning information in a separate file > is that, while a manifest is a single source of truth for the inherent > dependencies of a single package, a pin file expresses contextual > constraints about a package graph as a whole. The fact that the > information in the pin file is context-based also leads to a second big > reason to keep them separate: it would be perfectly reasonable to have > multiple pin files for the same top-level package, for example in the case > of CI systems that should test against the latest release versions of > dependencies as well as the latest pre-releases (for example). There would > need to be additional facilities for this to work well, but the design > should not preclude the use of multiple pin files in the future, and > storing multiple sets of pinning info in the manifest would make that > harder. > > Anders > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
