Update composer.json #243

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@stloyd

stloyd commented Jan 11, 2013

Add provide part as doctrine/common >=2.2,<2.4 has cache in it.

@doctrinebot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@doctrinebot

doctrinebot Jan 11, 2013

Hello,

thank you for positing this Pull Request. I have automatically opened an issue on our Jira Bug Tracker for you with the details of this Pull-Request. See the Link:

http://doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DCOM-161

Hello,

thank you for positing this Pull Request. I have automatically opened an issue on our Jira Bug Tracker for you with the details of this Pull-Request. See the Link:

http://doctrine-project.org/jira/browse/DCOM-161

@doctrinebot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@doctrinebot

doctrinebot Jan 11, 2013

Oh btw, I just (automatically) realized that you are not creating this pull request against the master branch.

Unless there are good reasons for this, i would suggest to close and rebase the Pull Request against master and then create it again. Sorry!

Oh btw, I just (automatically) realized that you are not creating this pull request against the master branch.

Unless there are good reasons for this, i would suggest to close and rebase the Pull Request against master and then create it again. Sorry!

@stloyd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stloyd

stloyd Jan 11, 2013

This could be also merged to 2.3, or I can create PR for that if you want.

stloyd commented Jan 11, 2013

This could be also merged to 2.3, or I can create PR for that if you want.

@stof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stof

stof Jan 11, 2013

Member

Thsi looks wrong to me. The code in Doctrine 2.2 is not the same than in Doctrine Cache 1.0 (it has been modified in later Doctrine versions). Here, you are saying it is equivalent.
You should probably use 0.9 here to be safe

Member

stof commented Jan 11, 2013

Thsi looks wrong to me. The code in Doctrine 2.2 is not the same than in Doctrine Cache 1.0 (it has been modified in later Doctrine versions). Here, you are saying it is equivalent.
You should probably use 0.9 here to be safe

@stloyd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stloyd

stloyd Jan 11, 2013

@stof I'm ok with that... but it would require to set tag near this commit: doctrine/cache@3912dc7 otherwise this 0.9 is not proper, and even better would be 0.8 because there was few 2.3.x releases too.

stloyd commented Jan 11, 2013

@stof I'm ok with that... but it would require to set tag near this commit: doctrine/cache@3912dc7 otherwise this 0.9 is not proper, and even better would be 0.8 because there was few 2.3.x releases too.

@stof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stof

stof Jan 11, 2013

Member

@stloyd it should be replace, not provide. provide is meant to be used for virtual packages only as it does not forbid installing several packages providing the same stuff (or providing different version of the same package). This would break here as the package provides the same class name.

And btw, you don't need to have a 0.9 tag in doctrine/cache for this to work. It would simply mean that requiring 0.9 would always give you doctrine/common.

But it is true that we should probably use different versions in 2.2 and 2.3

Member

stof commented Jan 11, 2013

@stloyd it should be replace, not provide. provide is meant to be used for virtual packages only as it does not forbid installing several packages providing the same stuff (or providing different version of the same package). This would break here as the package provides the same class name.

And btw, you don't need to have a 0.9 tag in doctrine/cache for this to work. It would simply mean that requiring 0.9 would always give you doctrine/common.

But it is true that we should probably use different versions in 2.2 and 2.3

@beberlei

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@beberlei

beberlei Jan 12, 2013

Owner

Uhm, why do we need this at all?

Owner

beberlei commented Jan 12, 2013

Uhm, why do we need this at all?

@Ocramius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Ocramius

Ocramius Jan 12, 2013

Owner

@beberlei It's just relevant if we keep cache within the main repo too

Owner

Ocramius commented Jan 12, 2013

@beberlei It's just relevant if we keep cache within the main repo too

@stloyd

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stloyd

stloyd Jan 12, 2013

@beberlei i.e. you use in you composer.json definition:

{
    "require": {
        "doctrine/cache": "1.0.0",
        "some/package": "*"
    }
}

And some/package has dependency i.e.:

{
    "require": {
        "doctrine/common": ">=2.2,<2.4-dev"
    }
}

Result will be fatal error with "cannon redeclare" value.

stloyd commented Jan 12, 2013

@beberlei i.e. you use in you composer.json definition:

{
    "require": {
        "doctrine/cache": "1.0.0",
        "some/package": "*"
    }
}

And some/package has dependency i.e.:

{
    "require": {
        "doctrine/common": ">=2.2,<2.4-dev"
    }
}

Result will be fatal error with "cannon redeclare" value.

@stof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@stof

stof Jan 12, 2013

Member

@beberlei making the old branches of doctrine common replace (and not provide as I said previously) doctrine/cache (with an older version number), it will allow bundles to require doctrine/cache and still allow people to use doctrine common 2.3 or 2.4 (when requiring doctrine 2.3, they would get the cache from common).

Member

stof commented Jan 12, 2013

@beberlei making the old branches of doctrine common replace (and not provide as I said previously) doctrine/cache (with an older version number), it will allow bundles to require doctrine/cache and still allow people to use doctrine common 2.3 or 2.4 (when requiring doctrine 2.3, they would get the cache from common).

Update composer.json
Add `provide` part as `doctrine/common` >=2.2,<2.4 has cache in it.
@Ocramius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Ocramius

Ocramius Dec 3, 2013

Owner

Is this still a thing? :)

Owner

Ocramius commented Dec 3, 2013

Is this still a thing? :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment