We are building by ant IDE packages. This is what is failing. It's failing for several days already.
On Wed, May 9, 2018, 6:32 PM Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > 2018-05-09 16:48 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > > > Carlos, > > > > From all of discussion I see only one advantage splitting Jewel from > Basic. > > Results in size of package. That's why I'm asking about copied classes. > It > > looks like we will have many copies of everything. If I create useful > Bead > > and you need it you will copy it. > > > > just explain a bit more in my response to Yishay email few seconds ago, > you'll see is not only about size > Thre's much more involved. > > > > > > After all you did the changes, so discussion is closed. > > > > It will be good if you could look into the failing build after those > > changes if they were the cause. > > > > I'm watching closely that builds doesn't break. Seems right now the build > is broke, but just the previous one was successful and there's not code > changes between, so I suppose is something not related to the code. I > always pass maven to all framework and examples when something that implies > moving classes or changing names or packages are in place, ensuring that > all compiles without problems. > > > > In my opinion if we reach 1.0 some day - Every changes in Core should be > > voted or waited till review on separate branch. > > > > That's completely right. 1.0 means a before and after. We are working hard > to make all things assemble nicely and work flawlessly. And as we think we > get that point, for me will be the right moment to make a 1.0 release. And > that means that any change should be more difficult to do, and will need > more consensus. Anyway, in that case, that would means for all of us the > same that is happen now. Changes use to imply that applications should > update to work accordingly to those ones. But in our case the changes are > very easy to do. Think in Java, and how difficult is change from Java 5 > -6-7-8... or Spring Framework... it's very very difficult compared to a few > changes here. But our code is still beta quality, and we can expect to stay > without change a single line of code, and expect our user base grows. > That's utopic from all points of view. > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > > > 2018-05-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 yishayw <yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > Just to get one thing out of the way, I changed NodeElementBase to > extend > > > Group, not because I'm sure that's the way it should be permanently, > but > > > because leaving your change as it was, was breaking our app which had > > > previously worked. > > > > > > Changes in base classes are always tricky, so I think it's a good thing > > > that > > > there's discussion and people feel obliged to voice their opinions and > > ask > > > questions. I think this should be encouraged. > > > > > > Personally, I don't feel I have a clear understanding of your > motivation > > > here. What difference does it actually make to you which packages > depend > > on > > > which? Can you give a specific example from Jewel where this makes a > > > difference? > > > > > > Excellent progress so far with Jewel, I think it's a difference maker. > > > > > > Yishay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira >
