On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:42 AM, steve donovan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:10 AM, David Manura <[email protected]> wrote: >> In other words, git replaces the function of separate rockspecs in LuaDist. > > Although myself a convert, git is not everyone's first choice. > Particularly important is that ordinary users do not need git as a > prerequisite, since we cannot impose our workflow on people.
Fully agreed. You, David (or even I) may think Git is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but not everyone agrees, and I'm definitely not going to try to change their mind. I think rockspecs are good enough for what we're using them for, and an easier sell for Lua module developers in general than a specific (Git+github)-based workflow. The rockspec format can (and will) use some improvement, but I don't see LuaRocks moving away from that and becoming Git-centric. > Typically, rockspecs do point at a snapshot, I accept "versioned" rockspecs which point to a git snapshot, since I can repack them into a .src.rock which does not depend on git, but in an ideal world I much would prefer if people sticked to making tarballs and x.y.z releases. Call me old-fashioned... > although usually > explicitly packaged; the SCM rockspecs I suppose were always intended > as a kind of 'pull' to get the latest version. Precisely. They're not fixed to a snapshot on purpose. They're just an aid for users wanting to try some module's bleeding edge code without having to learn yet another SCM. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
