On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]>wrote:
> Also, to your comments Sean - I assume you are referring to 0.22 and > 0.23-SNAPSHOT? > > In general I don't like the idea of worrying about pushing breaking > changes into the trunk because of people relying on snapshot. > Production systems shouldn't be depending on nightly builds, right? > Shouldn't & are are two different things. Do any of you who would like to spin a release have time to validate trunk today? If everything checks out, I am +1 for release and then merge this week. If trunk is not releasable though, I say lets delay a month and release with require js. > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ok. Are we ready to release 0.22? I'm fine with release first, but I'd > like > > to get require into trunk relatively soon so we can take advantage of it, > > and also so that we can keep the require, angular branches and trunk all > > fairly in sync. > > > > > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Sean Cooper wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> This will save anyone that is using 0.21 SNAPSHOT. Release 0.22 and > then > >> merge onto 0.22 SNAPSHOT > >> > >> -Sean > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > It's been 2 months since the last release. Let's do a 0.22 release > first > >> > with the bug fixes and improvements. After the release merge the > require > >> > branch into trunk and document how to migrate existing installations. > >> > > >> > Jasha > >> > > >> > On 1 July 2013 16:38, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > IMO, latter; but, I would allow 72 hrs for lazy consensus review. > >> > > > >> > > Other opinions? > >> > > > >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi All, > >> > > > > >> > > > The require.js branch is nearing completion, and I expect it will > be > >> > > > ready to bring back into trunk within the next day or two. Should > >> > > > the > >> > > > merge be submitted as a patch through the review board, or should > I > >> > > > just go ahead with it when it is ready, and provide an 0.21 -> > 0.22 > >> > > > guide? > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > Hey all, just to be clear since Dan's patch created a bit of > >> > confusion > >> > > > > - I created a "require" branch for this task. Since this is a > >> > > > > pretty > >> > > > > broad change I felt we needed a branch to collaborate and > complete > >> > the > >> > > > > changes. I am expecting a number of patches to be submitted > >> > > > > against > >> > it > >> > > > > in the next couple weeks. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin < > >> > > [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chris Geer > >> > > > >> <[email protected] > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > >>> >wrote: > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > Specifically, the idea of require js is to take all > references > >> > off > >> > > of > >> > > > >>> > the global namespace and to build out and resolve a > dependency > >> > tree > >> > > > >>> > for your client side code. So if we made it optional, then > >> > someone > >> > > > >>> > who wanted to take advantage of the feature would need to > >> > > > >>> > overlay > >> > > any > >> > > > >>> > place where there is a reference to the global rave object. > >> > > > >>> > That > >> > > > >>> > includes jsps where there is a script block that uses > rave.*, > >> > > > >>> > and > >> > > > wrap > >> > > > >>> > that in a require block. You would also need to overlay the > >> > > > >>> > java > >> > > > class > >> > > > >>> > that inserts rave.registerWidget(...) onto the page and wrap > >> > those > >> > > in > >> > > > >>> > require blocks. Also any jsp that has an onclick="rave.*" > >> > > > >>> > event > >> > > > >>> > handler, those would need to be moved to jquery bindings and > >> > > wrapped > >> > > > >>> > in require blocks. Once you had that you would overlay the > >> > > > >>> > rave_script.js tag so that instead of link all the scripts, > >> > > > >>> > you > >> > > just > >> > > > >>> > reference require.js with a data-main attribute pointing to > >> > > > >>> > your > >> > > > >>> > bootstrapping script. (See > >> > > > >>> > http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html > >> > ). > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > If instead we make a breaking change, then we would do all > of > >> > > > >>> > the > >> > > > >>> > above work on trunk. An implementer who wanted to go to 0.22 > >> > would > >> > > > >>> > then be responsible for updating their scripts to be written > >> > > > >>> > as > >> > AMD > >> > > > >>> > modules (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#define). The > >> > > > >>> > script > >> > is > >> > > > >>> >
