You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Yes, there is a risk that somebody's repo will actually be expecting sbt-extras, but I think we should just rip that bandaid off, there is no "good time" to rip it off.
Motivation: sbt-extras is not the standard, and the proliferation of multiple launch scripts (there's a coursier one now, too) is bad for the community. I think we should discourage use or perception of sbt-extras as a de facto default. The official script should be the de facto default. It's fine for sbt-extras to exist as a power-user alternative for those who want it. (And if sbt-extras has some feature that is really so commonly needed, that feature should be ported to the official one.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Well, I know that Eugene and I are in the strongly-pro-official-launch-script camp and @dwijnand... isn't necessarily. I guess we've already talked about this multiple times in multiple contexts... but, Dale, do you want to make an argument that's particular to this context?
As per discussion on #765
Yes, there is a risk that somebody's repo will actually be expecting sbt-extras, but I think we should just rip that bandaid off, there is no "good time" to rip it off.
Motivation: sbt-extras is not the standard, and the proliferation of multiple launch scripts (there's a coursier one now, too) is bad for the community. I think we should discourage use or perception of sbt-extras as a de facto default. The official script should be the de facto default. It's fine for sbt-extras to exist as a power-user alternative for those who want it. (And if sbt-extras has some feature that is really so commonly needed, that feature should be ported to the official one.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: