On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Antoine Toulme <anto...@toulme.name> wrote:
> Good job Michael, I look forward to using the lock_jar gem in my projects.
> Trejkaz, is lock_jar covering your use case?

It does appear to and will be something I'll investigate. I'll also go
digging for whether the similar plugins for Gradle will give us a
similar result.

> I hate non-reproducible builds and semver-relaxed dep-of-the-dep issues, but,
> while a broken dep fails the build for lots of people (downside), the upside 
> of this
> is that very quickly (within hours of a new dep being published) there will 
> be lots
> angry people complaining about it on GitHub, and a faulty dep will be 
> typically
> quickly rolled back / superseded with a patch. Otherwise, some bugs might be
> sitting hidden for a long time.

What we find is that obscure broken dependencies are not found
immediately after the commit. Most of the time, they are not even
found before release, or during testing. They are found the first week
after release, or in some cases, 2 months after release, when it can
do the most damage.

> When Maven came about, it’s biggest value-add compared to Ant or makefiles
> was that it made builds reproducible.

Not true. What Maven actually did was to bring non-reproducible builds
into the mainstream.

Ant builds were *very* reproducible, because the only easy way to get
your dependencies was to check in your jars. And although it's true
that the repository is also external, if you have corruption in that,
you're pretty much screwed, no matter which build tool you want to

But using Maven, if we want to use a library, we're supposed to get it
from an "artifact server". These servers can give you different data
for two identical requests a few minutes apart, without you even
changing anything in your code. I have even *seen* our artifact server
at work doing that while we have been using Gradle, which is no better
than Maven in this regard.

Sometimes, someone will try to gloss over this problem by saying
things like, "but the local cache will ensure that two builds will be
the same!". This is ridiculous as well, because other people who build
your software don't have the same cache as you. Different members of
the team have different caches. Different slaves within the build
cluster for the same team don't even share the same cache. So I can
only assume people who make that sort of claim are working on toy
projects with one developer, where one computer can still build
everything they make in a reasonable time frame. Or perhaps they don't
write any tests, thus making their builds fairly fast.

So basically, with Maven, we can't even have a *truly reproducible
build*, as long as there is at least one dependency.

Remind me again, though, what *did* Maven improve exactly? It has
never really been clear to me. Every time I check out a project from
somewhere and try to run the Maven build, it has failed to build.


Reply via email to