Yes. It definitely makes sense to me. Let’s get the 0.9.3 release out without breaking changes. If we decide to keep Carlos’ changes and/or modify them, there’s no reason it cannot go into 0.9.4.
Thanks, Harbs > On May 17, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Carlos, > > Those changes were not properly discussed. Let's wait till the end of the > discussion and proper fix. I personally prefer wait even another month than > release something what can change significantly. > > Is that make sense to others ? > > Thanks, Piotr > > 2018-05-17 10:26 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > >> Hi, >> >> just find the imports with problems, fix them and committed. If there's no >> others this should fix the release. >> >> If you see the commit, the changes are easy, and no more of some secs to do >> for our users, in case they use this core classes. >> >> Let's see what Jenkins reports in the following build >> >> >> 2018-05-17 10:16 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I think we are getting sufficient progress I the discussion thread to >>> still think about a revert. I'm most for change things from this point, >>> that should be the normal way from 0.9.2 to 1.0. We can as well hold a >> bit >>> the release until we have cleared all this. As I said, if we revert, and >>> release 0.9.3 with old code, blog examples will not work at all, and that >>> will suppose lots of people in the internet trying us and failing. >>> >>> Think that: >>> >>> 1) There's no breaking changes at all about functionality >>> 2) The change was only: >>> a) move things from Basic to Core >>> b) rename packages on some of that 2.a) things >>> >>> >>> So the real problem now for me is 2.b) and that's the reason why jsonly >>> build is failing, since we have things in framework with not examples >>> referencing it, and since SWCs does not validate CSS beads, when used >> that >>> CSS in final app that fails. I think that's for me a major problem, and >>> will prefer to focus in find that code and fixing it. >>> >>> I'm trying to focus this morning on doing this, and hope to fix on that >>> way jsonly >>> >>> >>> 2018-05-17 10:08 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> It's not about the minor changes in his app in my opinion. In the result >>>> of >>>> the discussion it may end up that you will revert everything and >> solution >>>> will be completely different. What will be the experience of the created >>>> app on the user sight ? >>>> >>>> 2018-05-17 10:05 GMT+02:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Harbs, >>>>> >>>>> that was returned to the old way, actually we have the same than >> before >>>>> refactor: >>>>> >>>>> import org.apache.royale.html.Group; >>>>> >>>>> public class NodeElementBase extends Group >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the problem is that we don't have any example of ButtonBar in >>>>> examples? and thus I was not aware of that concrete component? >>>>> >>>>> I'll try to see that and if we need, I'll create and example now for >>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> The change to solve this in your code base is really easy and direct: >>>>> >>>>> search all "import org.apache.royale.html.supportClasses.DataGroup;" >>>> and >>>>> replace with "import org.apache.royale.core.DataGroup;" >>>>> >>>>> (for me is clear that DataGroup is a Core piece, that will be used not >>>> as >>>>> Basic or Jewel implementation, but as a "core" piece used for the rest >>>> of >>>>> UI sets) >>>>> >>>>> I'll be looking at it right now >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for exposing it! :) >>>>> >>>>> Carlos >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2018-05-17 8:49 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> Having trouble getting this email to “take”. Trying a paste link >>>>> instead... >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like it does have issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> I just pulled the 0.9.3 branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> I get a lot of these warnings when I compile the framework: >>>>>> https://paste.apache.org/Wy9t <https://paste.apache.org/Wy9t> >>>>>> >>>>>> I used it to compile my app, and I get runtime errors due to missing >>>>>> components. This seems to be due to HTML not subclassing Group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s an example of elements which go AWAL: >>>>>> https://paste.apache.org/s9og <https://paste.apache.org/s9og> >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything below “ul" is missing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Harbs >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 16, 2018, at 10:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>>>>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm pretty sure the branches were cut before the changes in >>>> question. >>>>>> You can pull down the branches and build them to verify. Or look at >>>>> their >>>>>> history on GitHub. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Om, did you see a date for when Maven SCM would be released? The >>>> only >>>>>> response I got from the Maven folks was to build Maven SCM from >>>> sources. >>>>>> If it is going to be more than a week, I might actually try that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carlos Rovira >>>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Piotr Zarzycki >>>> >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carlos Rovira >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Carlos Rovira >> http://about.me/carlosrovira >> > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
