[swift-evolution] [swift-build-dev] [Review] SE-0085: Package Manager Command Names

[Dan Appel]

+1 to `swift package` being a little too verbose. However, I like the
alternative `swift pm`/`swiftpm` (as noted in the proposal) even less. I
have already been referring to the package manager as SPM, so IMO that name
does not lose out on any clarity while also allowing it to be terse enough
for every day use.

I would not be against having both `spm` and `swift package` as Honza
suggested.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:50 PM Honza Dvorsky via swift-build-dev <
swift-build-dev at swift.org> wrote:

> I agree with the review feedback so far, it's a good proposal. But just as
> David mentioned, I think a `spm` command, which would just be an alias for
> `swift package` would work really well. `spm build`, `spm test` all feel
> very in line with existing tools like gem, npm, pod etc. I think those ~3
> letter commands are very short for a good reason. And with the entrance of
> Swift on the server, having to write `swift package X` right next to the
> rest of the "3-letter" tools could feel like an oversight.
>
> I absolutely agree that for the sake of discoverability and clarity, the
> `swift package` command should be the canonical way. And in addition to
> that, I suggest we add `spm` to better fit into the CLI-driven world and
> save people quite lot of typing.
>
> Honza
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM David Hart via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> >    * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>
>> +1 This proposal makes the package manager a first-class tool, instead of
>> a set of command options.
>>
>> >    * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>> change to Swift?
>>
>> It should be addressed before it goes public.
>>
>> >    * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >    * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>
>> I'm used to using npm, pod, gem, bundle. So I think I would have
>> preferred a spm command. It would also have made commands shorter to type.
>> But I guess the proposal makes more sense for Swift.
>>
>> >    * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>> reading, or an in-depth study?
>>
>> Serious read.
>>
>> > More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>> >
>> >    https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > - Daniel
>> > Review Manager
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-build-dev mailing list
> swift-build-dev at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-build-dev
>
-- 
Dan Appel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160510/8144e648/attachment.html>