| 1 |
On 9 August 2014 09:39, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> *AND* (just to tie this back) it's unlikely that this is going to |
| 4 |
> actually help the original issue posted, ie, reducing the amount of |
| 5 |
> dependency updates being done "unnecessarily" on a system, or making |
| 6 |
> blind/automated system updates (of the type mentioned in the thread) |
| 7 |
> less susceptible to system breakage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah, if anything, that system is more likely to isolate previously unknown |
| 11 |
incompatibilities, establish *tighter* dependency ranges in order to |
| 12 |
satisfy them, and require *more* revision bumps and require you to update |
| 13 |
much more than you already do. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So careful what you wish for :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Kent |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives