Skip to content

Conversation

@stof
Copy link

@stof stof commented Jan 1, 2017

As this package does not provide any code and is meant to be required as an indication of adoption, forcing all projects to download it does not make sense. Metapackages cover this case.

stof added 3 commits January 1, 2017 10:53
As this package does not provide any code and is meant to be required as an indication of adoption, forcing all projects to download it does not make sense. Metapackages cover this case.
@Revisor
Copy link

Revisor commented Jan 1, 2017

Nice, I didn't know about this. For those interested, here's the documentation:
https://getcomposer.org/doc/04-schema.md#type

This is not my project, so it may be not my place to ask, but could you squash the commits, please? Two of the three are nonfunctional.

@stof
Copy link
Author

stof commented Jan 1, 2017

This PR should be rejected if #21 is meant to be merged though, as it will then bring code.

However, I still think that using keywords rather than type to hold standard is better according to the composer schema.

@pmjones
Copy link

pmjones commented Jan 2, 2017

This and other future PDS publications are likely to include code of some sort, so "metapackage" seems inappropriate.

As for using keywords instead of the package type: noted, and pondering. :-)

@pmjones pmjones closed this Jan 2, 2017
@stof
Copy link
Author

stof commented Jan 3, 2017

@pmjones you can change the type of package once it starts having code in it.

@stof stof deleted the patch-1 branch January 3, 2017 08:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants