3 ms·
I'm going to guess you're a Rubyist. I had to look up what "vendor everything" referred to. There's a reasonably well referenced blog post by a Rubyist -- but
by solipsism 12y ago
I'm going to guess you're a Rubyist. I had to look up what "vendor everything" referred to. There's a reasonably well referenced blog post by a Rubyist -- but only referenced by other Rubyists. I see that the Bundler tool looks for a 'vendor' subdirectory, so I'm going to guess that's how it became a part of the Ruby lexicon.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's possible you're using Ruby lingo and not general-purpose tech terms. I could be wrong, maybe I just missed the boat.
I think "bundle everything" might make sense to everybody, including Rubyists.
- jleader 12y agoI remember reading about "vendor" branches in the cvs documentation (probably in the early 2000s), which if I recall correctly were trying to solve a similar problem to sub-modules in git. So I don't think the Rubyists invented the term.
- djur 12y agoThe Subversion book covers the concept of vendor branches extensively: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced.vendorbr.html http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced.vendorbr.htm... That's where I first read the term, but it predates svn. As far as I know, it's been the common term for committing external dependencies to your own VCS for as long as there's been such a thing as a VCS.
- lavamantis 12y agoWe are Nodeists (not nudists - to the best of my knowledge) - we like to use the term "shrinkwrap."
- jacques_chester 12y agoShrinkwrap isn't quite the same. npm install --save seems to be the closest equivalent, based on discussions I've had with people. Vendoring means having the physical source code on hand. Not version numbers, not SHAs -- actual checked-out code.