Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mmocny@google.com designates
 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mmocny@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEeF2TcZgZa5daAj7oNsD8kaLaejuj7nKQPvuSZdv3qnUbYxMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62368B3C-70D3-4ED3-B470-8BFFD1DF2EDB@gmail.com>
 <CA+GVa3bKbJ4bbmVi+mi3fk1ej1q3uqfNkRdGwp41ZSci+vA8Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ef63ff7ae6f4986a7d96fd47b690437@DM2PR03MB366.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHYtTq=H3R7YmCycWhQXH5FW_dzxvixY6+DpiiD9suC_cyMSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+GVa3YjXvtrHRjtsdh3hypbbsZKxPWjvrzn1wx25GLjcNzBqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP7NMPpjx1HMHhMmPh_1oHsburNTERr61KDg1um9UXxyNicB3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <a436b224c9fb4bf3bcc02651e018405b@BLUPR03MB359.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <1BE6DB46-312C-4EDD-896A-6D05902B376A@gmail.com>
 <CAEeF2TcZgZa5daAj7oNsD8kaLaejuj7nKQPvuSZdv3qnUbYxMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:24:33 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAEeF2TdR_oqu=6NYcfPbu_+q1=1bEG3Luj_5cOg_csFQnJ80Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] shrinkwrap
To: Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
Cc: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e2b25f62ce05036bdde3

--001a11c2e2b25f62ce05036bdde3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

..and just found this: https://github.com/alanshaw/david

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:

> No strong opinion, but I'm leaning with Michael.  Have there been examples
> of nested dependency version mismatches actually biting us that we are
> insistent on shrinkwrap?
>
> For the record, last time I looked into this, npm commands were a bit
> limited when it comes to easily managing dependency updates in
> package.json.  However, theres an open call for PR to add npm upgrade:
> https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/4471
>
> -Michal
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarcelk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nope. This discussion is about tweaking our process going forward. I want
>> to get 3.6 live as soon as the voting is complete, which is happening in
>> the thread titled "[Vote] Tools Release 3.6.3-0.2.13". Hmm, there are no
>> other votes there yet besides mine. Folks, please review, vote, and let's
>> get this puppy out the door!
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH) <
>> panarasi@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Also a quick question. Will we be withholding the 3.6.* release till we
>> resolve this discussion?
>>
>>
>

--001a11c2e2b25f62ce05036bdde3--