▲ | horsawlarway 4 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a great example of chesterton's fence. The author of this piece doesn't understand why a top level project might want control of its dependencies dependencies. That's the flaw in this whole article, if you can't articulate why it's important to be able to control those... don't write an article. You don't understand the problem space. Semantic versioning isn't perfect, but it's more than a "hint", and it sure as hell beats having to manually patch (or fork) an entire dependency chain to fix a security problem. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | junon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think people forget NPM added package-lock.json for the npm@5 release that was rushed out the door to match the next node.js major and was primarily to cut down on server traffic costs as they weren't making money from the FOSS community to sustain themselves. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | aidenn0 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Author puts up Maven as an example of no lockfiles. Maven does allow a top-level project to control its transitive dependencies (when there is a version conflict, the shallowest dependency wins; the trivial version of this is if you specify it as a top-level dependency). I think rather that the author doesn't realize that many people in the lockfile world put their lockfiles under version control. Which makes builds reproducible again. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|