Hi Alex, I don't think that's what happen. My version (always considering that there's my version, your version and the truth):
1.- You make a commit that introduced IDEs break 2.- I spend Saturday morning trying to find a way to fix that 3.- Instead of revert your commit I make a change of the thing causing the problem with the comment "to be reverted as we find the solution" 4.- You was upset since you consider it a revert, and I asked you to find a way a solution so we all can live in peace and armony 5.- You said me that I must to do it myself or pay someone to do it, and that Alina and others have priority over my needs 6.- Dave told us that we should work on branches, since nobody is a special case here. We are on that point where we have a branch with a first commit that is my commit reverted, in order to find the solution. Since Royale has different sets no one is more important than other. Basic, Jewel, and not Mx/Spark must coexist, and should work in conjunction. I'm using Jewel and MX for RPC part and some other classes (i.e. CurrencyFormatter, and maybe others). The changes in config files make IDEs goes crazy. So I can have a "jewel-config-template.xml", that has jewel, mx,...and other libs needed, no problem on that, but when I tried to create that, I couldn't get it work. That's point 2 in my list. For that reason maybe there's a bug and that could be done, if that's the case, I think is Alex responsibility to fix that to leverage his change, and not make me depend on my time or money to contract other people to do that. IOW, if we make a change that break something, and others complains, don't see a point to make a battle for something like that. I think is more easy to work on fix that instead of invest time in a large thread and emails. Since this Friday I release our real work Apache Royale app first iteration, I plan to work on that this week end, but finaly I must fix things on our release for Monday, so I can work on that on this on Monday or Tuesday. El jue., 29 nov. 2018 a las 10:40, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) escribió: > As discussed I changed royale-config.xml to list all of our SWCs except > for MXRoyale and SparkRoyale, and changed flex-config.xml to use all SWCs > and have different default classes such as mx.events.MouseEvent instead of > org.apache.royale.events.MouseEvent. I think Carlos has the only project > using MXRoyale and Jewel and maybe some Basic so neither config is set up > exactly for his needs. Since all configuration is theoretically > overridable as compiler options, he should have been able to get going by > specifying what SWCs he wants to use. > > He said he wasn't able to do that, so he committed a change that went back > to using a wildcard in royale-config.xml and thus pull in all SWCs and > re-introduce the problem. That doesn't make any technical sense to me and > brought back the CSS problem that was affecting folks like you. So I asked > him to revert his wildcard change and so far, he hasn't and instead he > started in on how I am seeking special treatment. > > -Alex > > On 11/28/18, 7:19 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I’m still not following. > > What did you change and what was the issue that Carlos hit? Am I > correct that you were fixing the problem that MXRoyale was overriding the > Basic CSS? > > What exactly was the fix and why was it causing problems? > > > On Nov 28, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Carlos reverted a commit I made without technical justification and > refuses to put back my changes when I asked, instead saying I was acting > like I should have special treatment. Apparently, Carlos couldn't compile > his app even though all of our examples build just fine. I've tried to > help, but cannot get solid data from Carlos. > > > > Somehow Dave Fisher thinks is ok for Carlos to act like that. I > think it sets a dangerous precedent to have committers revert other > people's changes without technical justification, and also a bad precedent > to allow people to basically call people names when they disagree about > something. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 11/27/18, 4:52 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have not been following the list very well the last week plus. > (I’ve been busy with some personal things.) > > > > I’m not following the issues here. What was changed, and what’s > the issue here? > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
