Hacker News Reader

Comment by typical182 | Hacker News Reader

FWIW, there are two machine-formatted sections of go.mod -- the first for direct dependencies, the second section for indirect dependencies.

(That's as of Go 1.17. Previously, that information was communicated via machine-generated comments in a single section).

View on HN

That seems reasonable.

I think I personally lean towards keeping them in separate files entirely because I like a clearer separation between human-authored content and machine-derived state.

but if you ever bump up the version of an indirect dependency (maybe to pick up a bugfix earlier), is this now a direct or indirect dependency?

In other systems, you do that by creating a direct dependency. Even though your code doesn't directly import the module, you author an explicit dependency because you care about the version of the module that your app ends up using.

This way, there's a clear separation between human-authored intentional dependencies and the automatically-derived solved versions and transitive dependencies based on that.

If you see a diff in your package manifest, you know a human did that. If you see a diff in the lockfile, you know that was derived from your manifest and the manifests you depend on. The only human input is when they choose to regenerate the lockfile and which packages they request to be unlocked and upgraded. That's still important data because regenerating the lockfile at different points in time will produce different results, but it's a different kind of data and I think it's helpful to keep it separated.

Direct means that your code actually imports it directly instead of transitively. It has nothing to do with the version of that dependency being selected in the go.mod file.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com