New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allowing getcomposer 2.2 channel #25
Conversation
The reason why it was there is to abstract away from CLI flags. If a user requests a specific composer version, and composer changes CLI flags to something different than |
As I see we have a lot of options:
Plus, in case of BC we have to update composer-wrapper major version if we follow semver (but we don't :| so... have no idea how to handle it) @kamazee please choose or provide strict requirement as you see it should be done |
Does "BC" stand for "BC (backward compatibility) break"? :) I see option with introducing |
Actually, a few more steps are needed. Refactor names + validation issue. It can be any of 2.1, 2.2, declare something like So, still looking for your input @kamazee |
Updated codebase (except tests, yet). It works well on E2E, except one rare case:
Let me explain: composer1 self-update doesn't have yet --2.2 flag. Composer-installer, composer2 works well in the same scenario, because they have --2.2 flag. |
98eadbd
to
17df7f4
Compare
17df7f4
to
18abf63
Compare
Since composer create one more channels composer/composer#10682 we have to allow it.
I think, removing static validation is safe enough, just because there are realtime validation exists. A user may specify any option, that announced on
composer.phar help self-update
orinstaller.php help
Another option is to create whitelist and to update it each time, when composer made channel changes. Today the list is here https://getcomposer.org/versions :
ps A dynamic validation is left as is (the validation that such option is exists on self-update or installer)
@kamazee wdyt?