Harbs, There is also another way. Maybe it is worth that I will spend couple of hours on my branch and try to understand what was wrong. If I would manage to do that - maybe you will be able to add your stuff on top of that ? Do you see value in that approach ?
I'm just afraid that doing again Jewel depends on Basic end up with a lot of problems for you and delay for weeks that release. Thanks, Piotr pon., 3 wrz 2018 o 09:23 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Hi Harbs, > > Looking forward to your changes. I'm just interested in release in > whatever state it is and dealing with discussion later on. > > Btw. I have invested also at least 6h with merge stuff and as you can see > it end up with bigger things. Good Luck! :) > > Thanks, > Piotr > > pon., 3 wrz 2018 o 09:18 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Right now, my priority is getting all three active branches combined with >> all code working. That means MX/Spark, Jewel, and all the additions on the >> revert branch all coexisting nicely in the merge branch. >> >> I’m spending the better part of today on that. >> >> I’d like to hold off on discussing where to go from here until I >> understand the issues you went through with Jewel better. I expect I’m >> going to go through a lot of the pain you already went through already >> getting Jewel to compile and work with the merges. >> >> I might end up in the same place as you. Don’t know yet… >> >> I’m open to all possibilities. Even if we do separate depenendies, having >> the dependencies even temporarily *might* help resolve some of the >> underlying technical issues. >> >> Let’s discuss when I come up for air… ;-) >> >> Harbs >> >> > On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > considering making Jewel dependent on Basic. I'm trying to put my mind >> in >> > that place. Since this is a huge effort for me, hope you all try to do >> the >> > same as me and considering some thoughts, so we can plan something that >> > works for all: >> > >> > Since Basic will be the middle point between Core and Jewel, can we >> > consider to move Basic CSS and TLCS to a BasicUI swc? So Basic could be >> > really the common basic library and CSS doesn't mess Jewel things? >> > >> > If so, we can go that router and test and discuss that integration in a >> > separate branch and deal with all of that. >> > this will inevitably delay the release, but maybe is time to solve this >> > first. >> > >> > One of the things to do in the final result is to compile Jewel (debug >> and >> > release) and comparte results on develop and results on integration >> branch >> > >> > Then we can decide what's better and release that >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > >> > El lun., 3 sept. 2018 a las 4:53, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid >> >) >> > escribió: >> > >> >> FWIW, I agree with Harbs. Enough time has passed and changes have been >> >> made that it is time to try making Jewel dependent on Basic so we can >> see >> >> in code (not words) what the problems are with doing that. >> >> >> >> My 2 cents, >> >> -Alex >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Carlos Rovira >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira >> >> > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
