Yuri, Thanks so much for you pull-request, just merged it!
Now, regarding the missing Parser class, can I ask which version of protoc you're using? Cheers, PP On 03/06/13 19:09, Yuri Z wrote: > Looks nice, however I have ran into two issues: > 1. Couldn't proceed with protobuf source generation on my Windows machine > withou source changes - I created a pull request with proposed change > 2. The sources generated with protobuf did not compile - complained about > missing class Parser: > d symbol > [ERROR] symbol : class Parser > [ERROR] location: package com.google.protobuf > [ERROR] > C:\wave\proto\target\generated-sources\org\waveprotocol\box\common\comms\WaveClientRpc.java:[6495,30] > cannot fin > d symbol > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Michael MacFadden < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Very good. Will do. >> >> On 6/2/13 4:49 AM, "Paulo Pires" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The merge is done. Would be great if people could take a look and >>> double-check it at https://github.com/pires/wave. >>> >>> Michael, thanks for your support. Perhaps a good start would be to >>> continue the package/module renaming and revisit the open issues. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> PP >>> >>> Em 2013-06-01 23:32, Michael MacFadden escreveu: >>>> Another benefit of maven is that it can automate some of the release >>>> processes in terms of generating the tar-ball and tagging SVN. >>>> >>>> On 5/31/13 3:17 PM, "Angus Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Paulo, >>>>> I want to thank you for all your hard work on getting this done. Once >>>>> you've gotten all the changes synced up, it'd be good to get a diff >>>>> on >>>>> reviewboard so comments can be made. Obviously this is too late for >>>>> our >>>>> first release, but it'd be great to get it ready for next release. >>>>> >>>>> Anything that makes the codebase easier to understand and follow is a >>>>> big >>>>> +1 from me >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Angus Turner >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Page where Maven module structure is discussed can be found at >>>>>> https://github.com/pires/wave/wiki/WiaB-Maven-Module-Organization >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 31, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right now, I have this https://github.com/pires/wave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll be merging latest changes during the day, but this is enough >>>>>> for >>>>>> you to fiddle with. >>>>>>> Also, I had only one issue with JDK7, that I eventually fixed in >>>>>> >> https://github.com/pires/wave/commit/34e44e1dfb0ac6e7820f4d4b71fe05837e >>>>>> fe >>>>>> d960 >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> PP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 30, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30/05/13 18:45, Michael MacFadden wrote: >>>>>>>>> If we have some interests, I would be more than happy to >>>>>> re-engage >>>>>> with PP >>>>>>>>> and get that maven transition done. While it's not a huge step >>>>>> I >>>>>> think it >>>>>>>>> will entice developers. >>>>>>>> My experience has been that Maven can be a bit of a Marmite >>>>>> transition >>>>>> - some people love it, some people hate it. Personally, I'm quite >>>>>> fond >>>>>> of >>>>>> Maven, but I've certainly never been put off using or contributing >>>>>> to a >>>>>> project because it uses ant. >>>>>>>> However clearer structure & modularising the codebase is >>>>>> something >>>>>> that >>>>>> I'm sure everyone would support, whatever build framework we use. >>>>>> With >>>>>> our >>>>>> limited resources, would it be wise to focus on these initially? >>>>>>>> I don't really have a say in the matter, but while I'd be quite >>>>>> happy >>>>>> to see a transition to Maven, I'm not sure it's a particularly >>>>>> pressing >>>>>> issue for the project at the moment. Sort of organising the >>>>>> deckchairs >>>>>> on >>>>>> the titanic? ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>> -- >>> Paulo Pires >>> Ubiwhere >> >> -- Paulo Pires
