On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Gary Poster <[email protected]> wrote: > Therefore, as I assemble the picture around me, we have a broken JS packaging > story now that is both significantly in flux and not necessarily appropriate > for including all of the sorts of things we need in our local applications.
Right now, Tim and Deryck amongst others have been landing regular patches on lazr-js - 10 so far this year. It may be broken in principle, but in practice its working. > My team's mission right now is not to solve Launchpad's or Canonical's JS > packaging story, and I would not like to be slowed down by it. Brad's > approach sounds reasonable, acknowledging that it is a stop-gap, and that we > would like to use something better, and possibly even that Launchpad would > want to help in Canonical's effort to figure it out better--as a separately > scheduled effort. I don't see why the packaging story is part of this; is there something I'm missing? > I'm very happy to be corrected, but most happy to have a clear path forward > on this that lets my team move quickly. Brad's is the only one I have > (understand?) at the moment. Drop the files in lazr-js instead, done. That should work on a technical level as I understand it. Yes, lazr-js has a wider mandate than *just* Launchpad, however the Launchpad team is the maintainer for lazr-js, just like we are the maintainers of Launchpad itself. That means we shouldn't hesitate to do things in lazr-js that fit better there than elsewhere. I agree that lazr-js isn't ideal, but launchpad itself is less ideal : so putting it in lazr-js would be an improvement. AIUI this is no harder than putting it in Launchpad, and certainly doesn't need the packaging story overhauled to do. -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
