On 16/07/16 18:43, John Souvestre wrote:
> [...] I might be wrong, but I believe that gvt
> does not share most of gb's philosophy:
Actually, I didn't write that gvt shares any of Gb's philosophies in the
first place. I wrote that the two PM shares SOME ideas and pieces of
code. Nothing else.
>
On 16/07/16 15:16, Peter Mogensen wrote:
> * Use gvt for vendoring everything into /vendor
You would be surprised to know that gvt uses gb internally, and both the
projects exchange pieces of code and ideas ;)
> But wrt. to the talk above: Didn't Dave Cheney dismiss the diamond
> problem a littl
On 16/07/16 13:51, Florin Pățan wrote:
> Thank you for bringing up my condition, I'll make sure I treat it, it
> sounds like something dangerous (nice insult by the way).
This is ridiculous. Now you're even making things up: the DKE is not a
mental/health condition or a disease, but it's just a sp
On 16/07/16 11:44, Florin Pățan wrote:
> I appreciate you like gb, it's an interesting tool, but you cannot
> explain why it's different compared to other solutions when it comes to
> those two particular problems mentioned by you so I'd kindly suggest
> reading more about it.
You are way too emo
On 16/07/16 01:43, Florin Pățan wrote:
> I feel this is a controversial statement.
>Godep can do this just as well, in fact any vendoring tool can do this,
> as long as you commit your dependencies.
That is not true. Dave Cheney explained it very well at GDG Berlin
Golang DevFest: https://www.yout
On 12/07/16 22:23, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> I use gb. I like it a lot and I have had no issues.
+1
Gb puts emphasis on reliable and reproducible builds; none of the other
package managers have such feature, and none of them work so well as gb.
--
You received this message because you are subsc
