4 ms·
I think if you put code out there in such a fashion that use of it depends on your version of it (whether that be the community culture at large, or just specif
by LocalH 5y ago
I think if you put code out there in such a fashion that use of it depends on your version of it (whether that be the community culture at large, or just specifically your way of going about it), then you have more of an obligation not to just take it down without warning people and giving them time to transition to either a forked package, or their own local copy, or whatever. It certainly harms the individual developer's reputation who does such a thing, even if one indeed has the ultimate right to do so.
Of course, if this pushes people away from modern dependency hell, then it may just be a good thing.
- db48x 5y agoNo, merely putting code out there for others to use creates no obligations at all. None of the open source licenses create any such obligations either.
- LocalH 5y agoI didn't just say that. I said that if you put your code out there in such a form as people rely on your instance of it, you have an obligation to not break them without warning. Don't want that obligation? Don't put the code out there in that form, put it out in such a way that people can't rely on your specific upload to use the software. If that means "don't use X package manager", then so be it.
- db48x 5y agoNo, using a package manager creates no obligations on the author of the software.
- 0x002A 5y agoI think dependency hell is inevitable and every language coming up with their own solution for packaging and dependency handling is just making it worse and at the cases like this just catastrophic.