3 ms·

Copying code is pinning a dependency, committing to never update it, and hiding the evidence.

• leetrout 7y ago
  Perhaps.
• lioeters 7y ago
  That's not always true. Many a time I've forked a dependency for one reason or another, and kept it up to date with upstream. Sure, it's a few more steps to update, but allows for deep customizations without waiting for original authors to support it (if ever). Another reason to fork/copy code, is that its development has ceased long ago. In that case, it totally makes sense to carry on the work, in-house at first. Regarding the article, sometimes copying code keeps the entire codebase easier to understand and manage without having an external dependency.
  • erik_seaberg 7y ago
    I guess that's not impossible, but it seems to reinvent git submodules without the tool support I'd want, and I think explicitly depending on our fork of their library would be clearer and safer.
    • lioeters 7y ago
      > explicitly depending on our fork of their library would be clearer and safer. I complete agree. To temper my comment, I've seen plenty of bad examples of copying dependencies, bundling old un-updated versions, with undocumented changes. In such case, it's true that copying leads to a worse kind of dependency.