A Rationale: my expectation, and I suspect most developers' expectations, is that when I build my product with a tool and my source does not change and I do not explicitly install a new version of my tool, that my resulting binary does not change either. With dynamic downloads of plug-ins (i.e., dynamic tool installs over which I have little or no /obvious/ control), that expectation cannot be met without an explicit statement of the specific tools I'm using.
My expectations could be satisfied by having the tool specify the explicit list of plug-ins (which is probably more "B" than "A") which it will use, a "release-approved" set of plug-ins. In both implementations, the critical aspect is the same: the build is reproducible over all time. -Jan On 9/1/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to hear from as many people as possible their opinion this > topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know where you stand). > > [ ] (A) All plugin versions must be specified by the project or its > parent hierarchy somewhere, at the cost of some verbosity (though we > should look at ways to make this easier/smaller/etc per the current > discussion) > [ ] (B) Retain the current behaviour, but make using the enforcer a > best practice to do the above, or some other control mechanism such > as having the repository manager handle the available plugins > [ ] (C) No opinion > [ ] (D) Undecided > [ ] (E) Other (please specify) > > Thanks, > Brett > > -- > Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
