#general
- e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:25 PMduring a highly volatile time of zinc revving - w
witty-crayon-22786
09/16/2015, 5:25 PMand IMO, the line here is that if pants doesn't expose it as a native option, it's not supported. - a
ancient-stone-50795
09/16/2015, 5:25 PMNow that we have the default versions of the artifacts for zinc baked in the code, I think the problem of getting some kind of mismatch between zinc and pants is lessened even further. - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMI don’t think its unreasonable that if we rip out some functionality (which is what we are talking about doing) that we warn the users before we do it, so they have time to correct it rather than just breaking them. - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMTo be super clear - the "users" are all here talking - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMThis is not your typical case at all - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMWe know the full set of users - h
happy-kitchen-89482
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMI think the takeaway is to discourage people from setting tool options, and possibly work towards outright not supporting it. - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMto be super clear the users are anyone that uses the open source project - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMIn general - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMNot in this case - h
happy-kitchen-89482
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMby people I mean repo owners - m
mammoth-pharmacist-54215
09/16/2015, 5:26 PMif that’s not the way we want to develop this we should put it in a private repo - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMMatt we develop this way for 98% of pants - a
ancient-stone-50795
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMIt might be nice to provide some kind of warning behind the now removed flag, but again, I am not worried about it because most people would not override the zinc version unless they REALLY knew what they were doing. - h
happy-kitchen-89482
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMThere's where we want to be and where we are. - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMYou're preaching to the choir but asking us to tithe 100% - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMwe want to give on 2% - a
ancient-stone-50795
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMWhen we get to 1.0 thought I hope we will consider a different policy for a 1.0 ‘stable’ branch - h
happy-kitchen-89482
09/16/2015, 5:27 PMA year from now, I agree that we'd better be in a place where this is locked down one way or another. But right now it's not a good use of resources. - h
happy-kitchen-89482
09/16/2015, 5:28 PMWhat eric said. - b
billowy-alarm-80641
09/16/2015, 5:28 PMSo I mostly agree-ish - b
billowy-alarm-80641
09/16/2015, 5:28 PMbut 1.0 has been a year away for several years now - b
billowy-alarm-80641
09/16/2015, 5:28 PMat some point we have to just start shifting our thinking - b
billowy-alarm-80641
09/16/2015, 5:28 PMit seems like we're putting a lot into the "1.0 bucket" - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:29 PMThe 1.0 we agreed on in at least 2 summits is ~4 BUILD.tools entry away - f
fancy-queen-20734
09/16/2015, 5:29 PMSo, 2% solution is to add the change to the CHANGELOG, which repo owners should be reading - b
billowy-alarm-80641
09/16/2015, 5:29 PMare there github issues for those 4 BUILD.tools entries? - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:29 PMYup =@nhoward_tw - e
enough-analyst-54434
09/16/2015, 5:29 PMAndy - no , but they are 1 issue