#general
- w
witty-crayon-22786
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMlol - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMPits - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMof despair - w
witty-crayon-22786
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMhahaha - b
bored-art-40741
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMInto which one falls - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMWell, not really? Pants wants to control the world so this is extra work for us - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:40 PMBut I assume Node devs get along today just fine? - b
bored-art-40741
10/09/2015, 7:41 PMOh I don't know anything about this - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:41 PMSO this may be purely a problem for pants trying to cram a bunch of node devs with verticals in 1 repo - b
bored-art-40741
10/09/2015, 7:41 PMMy comments have no bearing on the actual problem at hand - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:41 PMwell they do with shrinkwrap - w
witty-crayon-22786
10/09/2015, 7:42 PM(in the original brand name sense of shrinkwrap: https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/shrinkwrap) - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:42 PMso the easiest solution is every target has package.json files, refers to source deps elsewhere in the repo with relative paths, devs run “npm install && npm shrinkwrap” locally, check in npm-shrinkwrap.json for each target, and Pants works with those npm-shrinkwrap.json files (fixing their relative paths for source deps to whatever they need in .pants.d) before doing its own “npm install” in .pants.d - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:44 PMIts not clear to me the checked in packages.json are the only way, but otherwise agreed - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:44 PMAt base we need to support checked in packages.json for transitioning, so we must support them - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:44 PMWe could also have BUILD in a new repo or paired with - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:44 PMbut thats a spelling detail - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:46 PMIf I were a node dev I'd want packages.json and nothing more - that seems pretty obvious - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:46 PMAnd we should support that if pants can extract the model it needs fully from that - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:46 PMThis is why I wrote GoBuildgen - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:46 PMIt was ridiculous for Go folks to have to write BUILD files - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:46 PMpants could get all the info it needed fromgo list - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:47 PMalright im all for that - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:47 PMin my opinion thats the goal we’re working toward anyway - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:47 PMworking with package.json - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:47 PMi mean source deps can be inferred from relative paths in deps - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:47 PMin package.json - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:48 PM3rd party can be inferred from package.json of course - b
bright-dinner-81701
10/09/2015, 7:48 PMbut i didnt know the limitations of Pants for that - like how hard it would be to implement, since BUILD file-based deps we get for free - e
enough-analyst-54434
10/09/2015, 7:48 PMBasically - in a future gloss I imagine the line being something like "... pants thinks in BUILD and many languages ecosystems thing similarly, for those, including Go and Node, we infer the BUILD, for others not so advanced, we need some help from you."