Hacker News Reader

Comment by curious_man | Hacker News Reader

I still don't understand why dependencies don't belong to the repo. My naive reasoning: I just have to clone the repo and bam, I already have all the dependecies needed to build the artifact. When I need to upgrade to a new version of a library, I only have to commit a new version and delete the old one (possibly integrating the new library in a separate branch if the process is not trivial).

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

View on HN

If you use something like Git submodules, Mercurial subrepos, or Subversion externals, you can get the best of both worlds. Your repo contains just your code, but a fresh clone will set up dependencies automatically.

I've also seen really simple projects get by with just an "install_deps" task in the Makefile, which you run first thing on a new clone. ("The simplicity of Maven meets the dependency management of Make," the wags will say.)

Sure, this is a solution. But my confusion remains: why I should't put all these dependencies in the repository with the code that uses them? In the end, doing so I have (almost) all I need to produce the intended software artifact.

There are a few reasons to do this. One is to at least nominally separate code that's licensed differently than yours (something your lawyers may ask you to do). Another is to make it easier to share your tweaks to the third-party code among several of your own projects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com