We're gearing up for a GWT 2.5, so I'd either like to get this in, or close
the issue if it will never make it into a GWT release.
On Thu Apr 05 15:42:05 GMT-400 2012, scheg...@google.com wrote:
On 2012/04/05 19:39:54, rdayal wrote:
Ping. Is this patch dead, or do we still want to get this
I'd like to get it in if possible.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Rajeev Dayal rda...@google.com wrote:
We're gearing up for a GWT 2.5, so I'd either like to get this in, or
close the issue if it will never make it into a GWT release.
On Thu Apr 05 15:42:05 GMT-400 2012, scheg...@google.com
Looks like this one is not going to be accepted.
It was actually already committed...if the decision was to not add it,
it needs to be reverted.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Wow, you're right. Good catch. I'll follow up and see what's going on here..
On Thu Apr 05 17:02:10 GMT-400 2012, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like this one is not going to be accepted.
It was actually already committed...if the decision was to not add it,
it needs to be
Leave it in. We've already spent way too long debating a simple string
field. I don't feel strongly enough that it should be removed.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, mdemp...@google.com wrote:
On 2012/04/05 20:44:10, jat wrote:
It seems like there should be some test for this to make sure it keeps
working.
Could you extend SingleScriptLinkerTest to make sure that it handles
collapsing
soft permutations?
Sure. Can
