Apple rules + bazel versioning changes

[Keith Smiley]

Recently there was a 2 part change to rules_swift (and the other Apple related rules repos) to:

1. Stop tagging releases on the rules repos

2. Stop testing against and supporting bazel release versions

While I think #1 is fine and being on HEAD is the only way you can realistically work with bazel rules these days. I think it would be great if Google could reconsider #2 here.

This change has a lot of repercussions that we're already seeing within days for rules_swift. It results in there being no bazel release version you can use with rules_swift HEAD (unless we want to build and distribute our own untested version of bazel at HEAD). This also means that as we submit fixes to rules_swift like this one we have to hope that it patches cleanly on the actual version of rules_swift we can use at the time.

Overall this seems like a huge downside for the bazel community since I don't believe that encouraging users to build, test, and distribute their own versions of bazel is what we want. I also think it's a huge downside for users of rules_swift since it makes it less clear what rules versions (or shas) are compatible with what bazel versions, and what bazel releases they have to wait for in order to update. Finally, I think it’s a huge downside for contributors of rules_swift who now have less of an incentive to contribute since they can't update once their patches land.

[Dave Lee]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 9:56:59 AM UTC-7, Keith Smiley wrote:

This also means that as we submit fixes to rules_swift like this one we have to hope that it patches cleanly on the actual version of rules_swift we can use at the time.

Note that it didn't patch cleanly, I had to fix up `patch` failures, and then create a new patch from that.

 

it’s a huge downside for contributors of rules_swift who now have less of an incentive to contribute since they can't update once their patches land.

+1 

[Oscar Bonilla]

Isn't this the problem that the Bazel federation (https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-federation) is supposed to solve? With the cadence of Bazel releases, I think what would work for users is to rely on the federation versions and for rule authors to keep it working within that context. I assume the federation releases are tied to Bazel releases. @Tony Aiuto any insight?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bazel-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bazel-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bazel-discuss/7ccf034f-0c54-4302-b8ec-9254d76c49b5%40googlegroups.com.

[Marcel Hlopko]

+Tony Allevato 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bazel-discuss/CAEHyN3spWr2gEs1Zf8cdz0r99qKA35%3DmqYiTqRGaoswYw61rAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Keith Smiley]

Here's another case of this issue breaking compatibly with any Bazel release 

https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_apple/issues/687

--

--
Keith Smiley