ipm
ipm copied to clipboard
intersystems
make description a required attribute in the module.xml
This would be a major backward incompatibility. It would be better to drive users to better habits through tools.
@isc-tleavitt I agree we shouldn't make it required during load but perhaps could make it required for the publish command to force the best practice? That would keep compatibility for downloading existing packages but force any new modules/versions published to add a description
I second @isc-kiyer suggestion.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:49 PM isc-kiyer @.***> wrote:
@isc-tleavitt https://github.com/isc-tleavitt I agree we shouldn't make it required during load but perhaps could make it required for the publish command to force the best practice? That would keep compatibility for downloading existing packages but force any new modules/versions published to add a description
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/intersystems/ipm/issues/210#issuecomment-2003822249, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVHEPZF5VSXWVMTZW75VZLYY3PD3AVCNFSM4YGYQKTKU5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMBQGM4DEMRSGQ4Q . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Fair points. Gut feeling: restrictions on what can be published should be under control of the registry itself, not the package manager. The registry could theoretically inject further constraints about naming conventions, package signing (eventually), artifact formats, etc. that could differ between registries.
@evshvarov how would this interact with the current automatic publishing that happens on OEX? Will people get stuck with "released" but not-actually-releasable versions?
Reopening to continue the conversation...
Yes, I agree it is more registry's feature than IPM client.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 3:21 PM Tim Leavitt @.***> wrote:
Fair points. Gut feeling: restrictions on what can be published should be under control of the registry itself, not the package manager. The registry could theoretically inject further constraints about naming conventions, package signing (eventually), artifact formats, etc. that could differ between registries.
@evshvarov https://github.com/evshvarov how would this interact with the current automatic publishing that happens on OEX? Will people get stuck with "released" but not-actually-releasable versions?
Reopening to continue the conversation...
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/intersystems/ipm/issues/210#issuecomment-2004202497, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAVHEP2D65R4T7C65RJJVITYY4A7JAVCNFSM4YGYQKTKU5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMBQGQZDAMRUHE3Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>