On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Joseph Lorenzini <jalo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So I read Russ Cox post and specifically noted this: > > "But once we understand the design space better and can narrow it down to > the few key features that must be supported, it will help the Go ecosystem > to remove the other features, to reduce expressiveness, to adopt enforced > conventions that make Go code bases more uniform and easier to understand > and make tooling easier to build." > > > And here's Sam Boyer: > > "It [vgo] was created largely in isolation from the community’s work on dep, > to the point where not only is there no shared code and at best moderate > conceptual overlap, but a considerable amount of the insight and experience > gleaned from dep as the “official experiment” is just discarded." > > > I don't have an attachment to vgo or dep one way or another. Package > management is complicated. I don't believe there's a "right" answer so much > as balancing tradeoffs. Someone is going to be upset that you don't support > their specific workflow. But there's been very little explanation to the > community about why the things dep did at a high level were thrown out. > > I am curious to know what those are.
I think Russ explained that fairly clearly in https://research.swtch.com/vgo-intro , particularly in the section "An Official Package Management Experiment". Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
