Hi Forrest, I agree there should be a way to recover from a botched release, but mutable packages cause problems that are hard or impossible to solve in other ways. If the reason for mutable packages is just to allow recovery from botched releases then why not just increment the version? Anyone auto-upgrading would be fine, anyone manually installing would be no worse off.
It's a lot easier to say "0.5.10 doesn't work, you need 0.5.11" than "0.5.10 doesn't work if you installed it before 10.30am PST, unless you were looking at a mirror or proxy in which case compare the source code to this commit to see which version you have" I don't want to pre-judge as there may be use cases I don't see yet, but so far I haven't heard anything that's worth the cost of allowing mutable packages. Cheers, Rich On 19 December 2013 01:07, Forrest L Norvell <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that packages should rarely be changed, but in practice if there's > a major bug or the packaging gets totally botched (which has happened to me > a few ties), it's good to have the ability to fix the problem in-place. I'm > less enamored on the possibility of removing packages once they've been > published. That seems like it's almost always a bad idea, and I would be in > favor of altering the registry to disallow it. > > F > > -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
