• CombatWombat@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You could do it as submodules, yeah, or using lfs, or also just check in the deps without their corresponding git history.

      • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 hours ago

        This does appear to then break the chain of trust for the users of the project, since it then requires downstream to review even more code.

        For example, if you’re an OSS user of three projects that each depend on library X, you now need to trust three copies of this library and make sure that they’re the same as the original.

        This seems to be a solution that makes the problem bigger for everyone, not smaller.

        • CombatWombat@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          I suppose? You’re either reviewing your dependencies or you’re not; I don’t think it matters much whether the unreviewed code comes in via a commit to your git repo or via a package manager. Once you’ve decided to either vendor or fork, that it matches your upstream becomes much less important — what matters is it works for your project. Either approach definitely comes with tradeoffs, that’s for sure; I only fork when I need to float a commit, and I prefer to maintain an artifactory if high availability is required.