https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Juliusz Gonera changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #7 from Max Semenik ---
I think that mobile must stick with whatever core uses because we want to share
code, e.g. enabling more desktop modules on mobile (preferrably not by default,
of course:) and use mobile code on desktop (e.g.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #6 from Krinkle ---
Lastly, assuming the base motivation for this is performance; I'm pretty sure
that there are much more notable and worthwhile areas to focus on when it comes
to perceptive performance for the user's experience.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #5 from Krinkle ---
I wouldn't be too worried about compatibility issues between jQuery 1 and 2.
They are designed to have perfect API, feature (and bug) parity. And this is
additionally ensured by loads of unit tests by upstream jQ
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #4 from Bingle ---
Prioritization and scheduling of this bug is tracked on Trello card
https://trello.com/c/bZScKFsq
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Jon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aricha...@wikimedia.org,
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #2 from Juliusz Gonera ---
I think using a different version of jQuery and risking breakage is not worth
it:
* jQuery 1.11.1: 37.91 KB gzipped (http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.1.min.js)
* jQuery 2.1.1: 33.58 KB gzipped (http://c
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Juliusz Gonera changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgon...@wikimedia.org
--- Comment #1
