Mathias LANG
Mathias LANG
Ping me here and/or on Slack when ready for review.
> Btw, shall I rename remaining `package_id` variables to `package_name` for consistency? I would just use `name`. Having a variable typed `PackageName` and named `package_name` is repetitively redundant :upside_down_face:
@nordlow : I don't think `PackageName` belongs to dependency, but at the same time, I reckon it's the most logical place to put it. I was hoping to gradually move...
@nordlow : I don't think so. The approach I took with configy, because I didn't want to assume the output was going to a TTY, was to expose a different...
@nordlow : I suggest you squash the commits, because as it stands, the commits are a log of your development iterations, when they should really be a log of atomic...
@nordlow : The point of the check is that some of those strings are not actually package names. For example, from commandline, we get package name + version spec.
No, I think the caller should do the transformation. Converts anything that's not a valid package name to a package name, e.g. call `toLower`, `replace(".", "-")`, etc...
No switch. It needs to be transparent for users across versions.
No only in the project being built. We can't change dependencies selections. We might want to consider an explicit upgrade otherwise we'll have to blindly accept the checksum I think...
`fileVersion` needs to be bumped to 2. And instead of the hash function itself I was thinking of using `checksum` as field name. Bear in mind we can already have...