3 ms·
Agreed. I don't think unpublish should even exist and it just creates all these scenarios full of subjective decisions that will help some and harm others. If
by gtirloni 11y ago
Agreed. I don't think unpublish should even exist and it just creates all these scenarios full of subjective decisions that will help some and harm others.
If 1.0.0 was published and it has a serious bug, publish a new package with the bug fix. Let 1.0.0 alone forever.
- chris_wot 11y agoIf unpublish shouldn't exist, then neither should there be the ability to rename packages.
- chadly 11y agoYes, you would need to publish a new version of the package with a different name. But the history of what happened (and consequently anyone depending on the old name) would be preserved.
- kibwen 11y agoThey could adopt Github's model, which seems to work well: when you rename something, the old name becomes an irrevocable redirect to the new name (at least, I think it's irrevocable, I haven't tested it), so all existing uses of the old name still work transparently.
- laughinghan 11y agoI have broken GitHub links, I assure you they're not irrevocable. I transferred my project laughinghan/mathquill to its own organization, so the repo became mathquill/mathquill, and then forked it, unwittingly breaking all github.com/laughinghan/mathquill/* URLs: not commits obviously, but Issues, PRs, Commit Comments...my commit messages occasionally link to discussions in commit comments, all of which were broken. :(
- laughinghan 11y agoProhibiting unpublish wouldn't prevent those scenarios, only the subjective decisions. The same scenarios would still happen, there just wouldn't be the opportunity to make the subjective call to help more and harm fewer by unpublishing.