Currently, moonshine-save depends on other Moonshine crates using a local path (see #12 ). This is a general problem with other Moonshine crates too. There are 2 ways I see around this issue while still allowing development on the larger Moonshine project:
1. Fork from moonshine-core instead of moonshine-save
Core does not depend on any other Moonshine crates.
In Bevy development environment, this would be similar to forking bevy instead of bevy_ecs.
2. Create a development branch for moonshine-save which removes local paths
It's an option, but an expensive one. It's introduce some complexity into the development process, and I don't think the complexity is worth it, considering the much easier alternative option.
This is becoming more and more the likely option as project grows. But development branch has to be done from core, and a CI workflow is needed to strip local dependencies from released sub-crates.
Either way, all of this need to be more formally documented.
Need documentation on contribution guidelines.
Currently,
moonshine-savedepends on other Moonshine crates using a local path (see #12 ). This is a general problem with other Moonshine crates too. There are 2 ways I see around this issue while still allowing development on the larger Moonshine project:1. Fork from
moonshine-coreinstead ofmoonshine-saveCore does not depend on any other Moonshine crates. In Bevy development environment, this would be similar to forking
bevyinstead ofbevy_ecs.2. Create a development branch for
moonshine-savewhich removes local pathsIt's an option, but an expensive one. It's introduce some complexity into the development process, and I don't think the complexity is worth it, considering the much easier alternative option.This is becoming more and more the likely option as project grows. But development branch has to be done from core, and a CI workflow is needed to strip local dependencies from released sub-crates.Either way, all of this need to be more formally documented.