Comment by Lazare | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lazare | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The lock file stops future upgrades; once it is written, your build stays on serde 1.0.27 even when 1.0.28 is released. In contrast, minimal version selection prefers the minimum allowed version, which is the exact version requested by some go.mod in the project. That answer does not change as new versions are added.

So with Cargo, you get the exact version you want, ie 1.0.27, and it won't automatically update when a new version is added. And with MVS you get the exact version you want, and it won't automatically update when a new version is added? ...either I'm an idiot, or Cox is using the word "contrast" here to mean "identically".

> Those choices are stable, without a lock file. This is what I mean when I say that vgo's builds are reproducible by default.

Yes, but Cargo uses a lock file by default, meaning that Cargo's builds are reproducible by default too?

I'm open to the idea that vgo/MVS is delivering something amazing here, but every writeup I've seen so far seems to have a miraculous ability to make it sound like a re-branding of the same features every decent package manager has had forever.

The key here is that Cargo ignores the lock files of the dependency, while vgo uses the go.mod files of the dependency.

So, if project A uses B, which uses 1.0.27 of C, then the lock file for A is locked to that version of C. Suppose B now releases a version that was tested with 1.0.28 of C, A will continue to be built with the older version because of the lock file, while vgo would (correctly) start using the new version because of MVS.

Umm. But we started with this:

> Those choices are stable, without a lock file. This is what I mean when I say that vgo's builds are reproducible by default.

You say:

> A will continue to be built with the older version because of the lock file, while vgo would (correctly) start using the new version because of MVS.

That seems to contradict Cox's assertion? If I get a newer version of C automatically when B updates, because I'm automatically getting a newer version of B, then I no longer have reproducible builds; the answer to what version of B I'm using would have "change[d] as new versions were added.", which is the thing Cox is saying vgo prevents.

But my understanding of vgo is that this is actually wrong; I don't get the new build automatically at all; I get it when I update using `vgo get -u`. Which is...the same as using Cargo (Composer, Bundler, Yarn, etc.) right? I eventually run the appropriate update command, the solver runs, and I get the new version of B and C.

Ultimately it feels like a dependency management tool can either lock me in to my current versions until I manually trigger an update to get bug fixes, or it can transparently update things in the background as new compatible versions are released.

I take Cox to be asserting that vgo does the former and Cargo does the latter, you seem to be asserting that vgo does the latter and Cargo does the former, and my understanding is both do the former. It feels like this shouldn't be this confusing to explain what vgo is trying to do. :)

I was not clear. If you say vgo get B@latest in A, you will get the correct version of C. If you do not pull in the latest version of B, you would not get that.

The thing I like about this is that for many transitive dependencies such as C, i do not want the absolute latest version - i would prefer the version of C that B was tested with at time of release. I can override this of course, but this is the default behavior i like.

> while vgo would (correctly) start using the new version because of MVS.

I disagree with the “correctly” part. MVS seems to pick up a newer version mostly by accident. If you’re relying on a transitive dependency to trigger a security update, you are doing it very wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com