The issues that I see with Jewel are related to the changes that were lost when you merged.
I’m hoping I can resolve this quickly. Let’s see how over-optimistic I’m being… ;-) Harbs > On Sep 3, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Harbs, > > There is also another way. Maybe it is worth that I will spend couple of > hours on my branch and try to understand what was wrong. If I would manage > to do that - maybe you will be able to add your stuff on top of that ? Do > you see value in that approach ? > > I'm just afraid that doing again Jewel depends on Basic end up with a lot > of problems for you and delay for weeks that release. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > pon., 3 wrz 2018 o 09:23 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > napisał(a): > >> Hi Harbs, >> >> Looking forward to your changes. I'm just interested in release in >> whatever state it is and dealing with discussion later on. >> >> Btw. I have invested also at least 6h with merge stuff and as you can see >> it end up with bigger things. Good Luck! :) >> >> Thanks, >> Piotr >> >> pon., 3 wrz 2018 o 09:18 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> napisał(a): >> >>> Right now, my priority is getting all three active branches combined with >>> all code working. That means MX/Spark, Jewel, and all the additions on the >>> revert branch all coexisting nicely in the merge branch. >>> >>> I’m spending the better part of today on that. >>> >>> I’d like to hold off on discussing where to go from here until I >>> understand the issues you went through with Jewel better. I expect I’m >>> going to go through a lot of the pain you already went through already >>> getting Jewel to compile and work with the merges. >>> >>> I might end up in the same place as you. Don’t know yet… >>> >>> I’m open to all possibilities. Even if we do separate depenendies, having >>> the dependencies even temporarily *might* help resolve some of the >>> underlying technical issues. >>> >>> Let’s discuss when I come up for air… ;-) >>> >>> Harbs >>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> considering making Jewel dependent on Basic. I'm trying to put my mind >>> in >>>> that place. Since this is a huge effort for me, hope you all try to do >>> the >>>> same as me and considering some thoughts, so we can plan something that >>>> works for all: >>>> >>>> Since Basic will be the middle point between Core and Jewel, can we >>>> consider to move Basic CSS and TLCS to a BasicUI swc? So Basic could be >>>> really the common basic library and CSS doesn't mess Jewel things? >>>> >>>> If so, we can go that router and test and discuss that integration in a >>>> separate branch and deal with all of that. >>>> this will inevitably delay the release, but maybe is time to solve this >>>> first. >>>> >>>> One of the things to do in the final result is to compile Jewel (debug >>> and >>>> release) and comparte results on develop and results on integration >>> branch >>>> >>>> Then we can decide what's better and release that >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> El lun., 3 sept. 2018 a las 4:53, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid >>>> ) >>>> escribió: >>>> >>>>> FWIW, I agree with Harbs. Enough time has passed and changes have been >>>>> made that it is time to try making Jewel dependent on Basic so we can >>> see >>>>> in code (not words) what the problems are with doing that. >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cents, >>>>> -Alex >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carlos Rovira >>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Piotr Zarzycki >> >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* >> > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
