On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:23 AM, brett.wooldridge < brett.wooldri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll throw in my 2￥. I see two things as untenable: > > 1. One incubator project with a bunch of widgets. I know it's > convenient to have one project to build to get all the cool bits, but > the reality is that each of those bits has a different maintainer with > different levels of commitment (and time) to getting it current with > the trunk. > > I think this has be the reality of the current incubator. Overall I'm quite happy with the incubator. It was a great experiment which had some great code come of it. Even if we declare this experiment 'failed' I still consider it a success in that it's helped us to an even better path. Thanks Fred > 2. Committing to support plural versions of GWT with a non-branched > incubator. If the incubator branches with the gwt trunk, users can > have some assurances that everything will work for a given version of > GWT -- save defects in said projects. > > I'm actually for giving the whack-a-mole process a go, with projects > living (independently) until they are merged or die a natural death. > Once merged, the project should be deleted or otherwise marked as > stopped. Truly abandoned projects will either be adopted by someone > who cares, or will suffer bitrot. Either way, there would be no > commitment to keep them current. > > Maybe with the lessened guarantees, fewer people will choose to employ > such projects, but my gut says that when you need a PagingScrollTable > you'll take one where you can get it. > > -Brett > > On Sep 15, 11:26 am, Isaac Truett <itru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > I pondered this topic over the weekend. I don't think I have enough > > information right now to arrive at a better solution. I honestly > > thought until Wednesday that the incubator was working well. I > > understand that things look different from the inside. > > > > Ray said last week that the new direction was going to be developing > > widgets in GWT trunk or in separate projects. I assume that means > > there will be throw-away projects for new widgets or groups of widgets > > that will last until the code is incorporated into GWT trunk. On the > > pro side, that would mean you're not bound to long term backwards > > compatibility or supporting the dead-ends that hang around in the > > incubator but are still used by a few people. But if the pace of new > > development is fast enough, I could see it turning into a game of > > whack-a-mole with new projects popping up and disappearing rapidly. I > > think one of the advantages of having a single incubator project is > > that users can build one project and get access to all of those > > experimental widgets at once. > > > > On a side note, a couple of other people have discovered the > > StyleInjector change: > > > > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/detail?i...http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/MakingIncu. > .. > > > > I'm not sure what to tell them at this point. I think at the very > > least the wiki needs to be clarified. > > > > - Isaac > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > -- Fred Sauer Developer Advocate Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 fre...@google.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
