Yes I was a little bit too verbose, sorry about that. The proposal simply is to sync the jsf.js codebase between 2.3-next and 2.3 so that they basically use the same js files. plus side less maintenance, downside, browser cutoff is ie9! So the jsf.js from 2.3-next also should become the jsf.js codebase of 2.3.x
Am Di., 13. Dez. 2022 um 16:07 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < pnicolu...@gmail.com>: > Hey Werner, > > To be complete here, what is the proposal for 3.0? > > Thanks, > > Paul Nicolucci > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 9:54 AM Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, sorry for the informal vote, but Paul Nicolucci had the >> idea. >> >> We had the discussion before, and no one really has objected, but I want >> to vote on this. >> The issue is: >> We have divergent codebases for the jsf.js for 2.3 between next and 2.3.x >> and 4.0 >> next was derived from 2.3 but got rid of tons of legacy code and hence >> uplifted the browser baseline to IE9 atm. >> This is becoming a maintenance burden because I basically have to >> maintain 4 different code branches for every fix. >> 2.3 >> 2.3-next >> 4.0 >> and 4.0 Typescript which will replace 4.0 hopefully soon. >> >> On top of that we have a ton of custom parameters I want to cut down like >> expanded, complete at... which load different aspects of the build >> my goal is to have only development and production with development being >> an uncompressed build and production being a compressed build. >> I18n also will be phased ont on the javascript side and an include of its >> own (i18n is deprecated anyway, no one really used it to my knowledge and >> the RI does >> not have it) >> >> The thing is I merged all this recently into 2.3 given that there was no >> negative feedback, but I can revert this change easily. Given that >> 2.3 is a stable codebase, it is better to vote on this before either >> keeping it that way or reverting it back. Some users might rely on older >> browsers still >> and cutting them off from a stable branch might be a bad idea. >> >> So here is my Question >> >> Do we want this, less code on the jsf.js side, reduced configuration, but >> also lifting the browser baseline and that in a stable branch? >> >> Yes or no? >> >> >> Please do a proper vote with +1 being YES, and -1 being NO! >> >> This is an informal vote, from my side! >> >> >> Werner >> >> >> >>
