Great! I'll connect later años see it.
Thanks Erik :)
El sábado, 4 de mayo de 2013, Erik de Bruin escribió:
> Branch... I'm mixing metafors, must be tired.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Erik de Bruin
> >
> wrote:
> > Carlos,
> >
> > Please re-read the thread and see who starte
Branch... I'm mixing metafors, must be tired.
EdB
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> Please re-read the thread and see who started the git vs. SVN. And
> please stop thinking that just because I don't like git I must not
> know git. I know git and I don't like i
Carlos,
Please re-read the thread and see who started the git vs. SVN. And
please stop thinking that just because I don't like git I must not
know git. I know git and I don't like it.
Let's move on.
I've pushed the merged thread.
EdB
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Carlos Rovira
wrote:
> Er
Erik, since Apache Flex is on GIT...don't you think is time to stop mails
about GIT or SVN? I left to respond mails about Git many months ago due to
the fact that this project is about Flex...not about GIT. Many people in
the list (and out of the list) criticized about high traffic in this list
onl
Also, I like this: first you say:
> We never merge directly in develop
... Then you say:
> 4.- merge back into develop
;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Let me clarify:
Telling me I'm doing it wrong and then telling me to do exactly what I
was already doing is killing my will to contribute. I'm not asking to
hold commits because it's more convenient for me, I was asking to
commit what you had outstanding so I could integrate that. As a
service to
Git is killing this project.
EdB
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Carlos Rovira
wrote:
> Erik,
>
> sorry for the inconvenience, but GIT is just about not have to wait. Your
> mind are still in SVN and still does not switch to GIT.
>
> We at work are always merging and resolving conflicts in i
Erik,
I make a fix for html5 example project and uploaded to a branch. I will
wait for your integration, but please we can't stand in this collaboration
way since is not practical and we have the tools to prevent this blockages.
I feel if we could work some hours side by side in person to see thi
Erik,
sorry for the inconvenience, but GIT is just about not have to wait. Your
mind are still in SVN and still does not switch to GIT.
We at work are always merging and resolving conflicts in integration
branches. We never merge directly in develop. For this kind of brutal
changes you should:
Yup, refactoring an active code base is never fun. I'm about to shut it
down for tonight. I'll check back in about 7 hours.
On 5/3/13 10:42 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> I just woke up, I'll look at it after breakfast ;-)
>
> It looks to be a small change, but it's confusing to have to look a
I just woke up, I'll look at it after breakfast ;-)
It looks to be a small change, but it's confusing to have to look at
three sources (original, 'goog.events' and Carlos'), so I expect some
errors to creep into the code after this merge. Shouldn't be too big
of a deal to fix the ones we find, tho
Should hopefully be a small change. How is it going? Did you get the
publisher to work again?
On 5/3/13 10:23 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> Thanks for waiting with this commit till after I land the
> 'goog.events' branch :-(
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Carlos Rovira
>
Thanks for waiting with this commit till after I land the
'goog.events' branch :-(
EdB
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Carlos Rovira
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> fixed in my latest commit, not JS and SWF works ok. Things look better at
> daylight ;).
> Only JS side need to improve applicationModel t
Hi Alex,
fixed in my latest commit, not JS and SWF works ok. Things look better at
daylight ;).
Only JS side need to improve applicationModel to be getter/setter.
I change SimpleBinding fix to try catch as you suggested.
Best,
Carlos
2013/5/3 Alex Harui
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I don't think the ch
Hi Carlos,
I don't think the change to ViewBase.as was correct. The applicationModel
property should be a getter. It looks like you reverted to a var.
See if that fixes the SWF situation.
-Alex
On 5/2/13 6:17 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I shared a branch with some changes "featu
On 5/2/13 5:17 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> now I understand the problem. I was not aware of @expose and what you
> comment here. Very important information. Tomorrow I'll go back to the
> sample and see if I can change the sample to get working with that style
> and remove this
Alex,
I shared a branch with some changes "feature/applicationModel_refactor".
applicationModel is the variable that makes createjs sample fail with the
change in simplebinding. I refactor to the way you show (hopefuly).
In the JS version all is working right. But now SWF compilations fails in
r
Hi Alex,
now I understand the problem. I was not aware of @expose and what you
comment here. Very important information. Tomorrow I'll go back to the
sample and see if I can change the sample to get working with that style
and remove this fix since I think it's better to force people to make
thing
Hi Carlos,
I saw the changes.
I think it is a good fix, but you might want to add a comment that the
non-getter approach is likely to fail for non-public variables when
minified.
Right now, binding in FlexJS only works for public properties and your fix
makes it work for public variables. Note
Hi Alex,
I commit a solution that fixes the problem, but I don't know if is
compliant with the motivation you make this change (minified version).
I think binding should work even if we don't have a getter/setter setup,
but I'm to new to this new framework that maybe this is not what you have
in
On 5/1/13 3:40 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
> Hi Alex
>
> this latest change in SimpleBinding:
>
> -this.source = this.document[this.sourceID];
> +this.source = this.document['get_' + this.sourceID]();
>
>
> Makes the createjs sample to not generate controls far beyond a
> SimpleBind
Hi Alex
this latest change in SimpleBinding:
-this.source = this.document[this.sourceID];
+this.source = this.document['get_' + this.sourceID]();
Makes the createjs sample to not generate controls far beyond a
SimpleBinding.
I need to change the sample code or it's a bug?
Thanks
--
22 matches
Mail list logo
