On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC+2, Colin Alworth wrote: > > So, given either "make a git repo on gwtproject/ and add a jar to > gwtproject/tools" with the minimal history, or a single commit adding all > already-modified classes to gwt in one go? I should be able to turn out > either change fairly quickly, once we decide. > > Adding to GWT directly would be somewhat lower friction (no need to ship a > jar to central, easier to further tweak if something is screwy), but as I > said, loses that tiny bit of history/context. Like you said, a forked jar > is not at all new for the project to have, and is a nice way to say "this > is external, even if we tweaked it a bit". For the zip distribution I > imagine we'd shade it in to the overall zip, but for the m2 release it > would probably be an external jar (since it will hopefully never change). >
If you're worried about the size of the JAR, let's kill legacy DevMode instead ;-) (Google possibly even has the patch ready, as IIRC they already removed it in their internal repository) Let's keep it simple and just ship it inside the gwt-dev JAR; our other repackaged dependencies are in there already (protocol buffer, streamhtmlparser, GSS, Guava, jscomp –for sourcemaps–, etc.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/99e84a33-371a-4e26-bdb2-a542bd2c9dfco%40googlegroups.com.
