We shouldn't have needed lockfiles

Re:We shouldn't have needed lockfiles by egh on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @12:00PM (#44813780)

we've all learned about things, not understood them, and thought "wow, these people must be idiots. why would they have made this complicated thing? makes no sense whatsoever. I can't believe these people, idiots, never thought this through like I have."

Most of us, fortunately, don't post these thoughts to the internet for anybody to read.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We shouldn't have needed lockfiles by zahlman on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @12:29PM (#44814235)

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

While I share the view that TFA is misguided in some ways, this isn't a productive or insightful way to make the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We shouldn't have needed lockfiles by tonsky on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @12:38PM (#44814333)

I worked for 20 years in an ecosystem that didn’t have lockfiles and had reproducible builds before the term was invented, and now you come and tell me that it couldn’t be?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We shouldn't have needed lockfiles by spooky_deep on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @12:43PM (#44814403)

Where did the packages come from? How did you know they hadn’t been changed at the bit-level since last time?

[ Parent | on HN ]