Just to examine these steps and try to communicate how I would have handled them:
When I run into a similar problem while using “bleeding edge” code, my first step is to write the problem to the list ASAP. I’ll spend the minimum time necessary to isolate the problem and then describe the problem as concisely as possible. Discussion usually helps flush out what the problem is and helps find a course of action. If I am stuck and must continue working, I will do one of two things: 1. Locally I will revert to previous code if I can. Usually with compiler issues, this is possible. 2. Create a temporary branch for my own use. If the change is useful to illustrate the problem (or it needs to be shared with others), I will push the branch to the remote. As you mentioned, your commit was likely to be reverted. That makes it a prime candidate for a temporary branch. Although I’m not sure why you couldn’t just revert to prior to Alex’s change locally to keep on working. I don’t think there was anything wrong with Alex committing his code to develop. We discussed the problem he was trying to solve and the change fixes it as intended. I don’t think anyone was aware that you were missing MXRoyale and Jewel. (I definitely was not.) I can’t imagine why it should not be possible to include the MXRoyale swc in a Jewel project (or vice versa). It should just be a matter of figuring out the correct configuration. Like Josh, I’d be interested in the details to understand the problem better. My $0.02, Harbs > On Dec 1, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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"
