We've been a little ambivalent about how well the incubator is working -- it's taken a lot longer to things to move into trunk than we ever guessed it would, usually for pretty good reasons. So, we need to find a different way of building up a pipeline, and that's a somewhat unsolved problem as yet. If anyone has ideas, let 'em rip.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > If you're after guarantees I guess that would be 1686, the one that the > 1.7 jar was cut from (gwt-incubator-july-14-2009.jar). Looking at the svn > history, nothing has actually changed in the code from that one to the > removal of StyleInjector. It's all wiki edits and such since then. > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:46 AM, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> So...as of right now, what is the *last* version of gwt-incubator that >> is guaranteed to work with GWT 1.7? Is it safe to assume that it is >> the version immediately prior to the removal of StyleInjector? >> >> thanks, >> >> jay >> >> On Sep 10, 8:28 am, Isaac Truett <itru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > [oops - +gwtc] >> > >> > Hi, Ray, >> > >> > I appreciate the drive to move forward and I applaud jumping on >> > opportunities to remove redundant code. >> > >> > The reason this policy was important, to me at least, is that it >> > provided a baseline to work against. The code in the incubator can be >> > very useful (I use PagingScrollTable extensively and used DatePicker >> > from incubator before it graduated) but it's also risky because the >> > code is still experimental and subject to change. The assurance that >> > those changes would be compatible with a packaged and released GWT >> > build (even just a milestone) meant that I could build incubator from >> > trunk and pick up the latest features and bugfixes as long as my >> > project tracked the latest GWT build. Because of the GWT policies on >> > deprecation and backwards compatibility, this has been fairly easy in >> > practice. As it stands now, incubator will not compile except against >> > GWT trunk, which is also notoriously unstable (it wasn't building as >> > recently as last night, which I see was corrected this morning). This >> > presents a much higher risk for those of us using incubator code. >> > >> > It also becomes harder to work on the incubator itself when it has to >> > compile against GWT trunk. I wanted to look into issue #267 last night >> > and I was stymied by GWT trunk not being in a buildable state. Not an >> > insurmountable obstacle, but one that seems unnecessary to me. >> > >> > - Isaac >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: >> > > Hey, Isaac. >> > > That policy has proven very difficult to live with. (And to tell you >> the >> > > truth I forgot about it.) >> > > The reasoning here was that we have released incubator jars that work >> with >> > > 1.7 and no plans to issue further ones before 2.0 MS1 lands. Should it >> prove >> > > necessary to go back and do so we can go back and branch. >> > > In the meantime, we were faced bugs due to FastTree in particular >> being tied >> > > to the old StyleInjector while new development was moving to the >> version in >> > > GWT. We saw the opportunity to delete redundant code and took it. >> > > Is this going to cause problems for anyone? >> > > rjrjr >> > >> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Isaac Truett <itru...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> Last year, Emily stated that it would compile against the "latest >> > >> gwt-milestone and gwt-trunk". There hasn't been a 2.0 milestone that >> > >> I've seen, so under the policy from last year StyleInjector should >> not >> > >> have been removed in revisions 1712-1715. >> > >> > >> So, what's the current policy for incubator trunk compatibility? >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
