* What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to the Swift Package Manager? Yes, pinning was fairly confusing to reason about
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? I think so. * If you have used other languages, libraries, or package managers with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? This fits in pretty well. It isn't a huge deviation. * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study? A quick reading. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:55 AM, Martin Waitz via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > I’m in favour of this proposal. > It solves the problems I have with the current behaviour of the swift > package manager. > > > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to the Swift Package Manager? > > yes. > While the existing auto-pinning feature can be used to get reproducible > dependency versions, > it has some deficiencies which make it more complicated than required for > the common cases without really solving the more exotic use cases. > Package pinning vs. requiring a specific revision in Package.swift also > felt like two overlapping features without a clear motivation for one > versus the other. > > > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > yes. > It focuses on doing one thing well without precluding other user use cases. > The new behaviour defaults does the right thing(TM) for the common use > cases and is easily explained. > Especially now that we are already able to require specific versions > within Package.swift, SE-0150+SE-0175 provide a nice set of orthogonal > features. > > > * If you have used other languages, libraries, or package managers with > a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > Never used a package manager with this kind of dependency resolution and > always wanted to have one. > > > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? > > Took part in the discussions for SE-0145 and now read SE-0175. > > — > Martin > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
