On 21/07/16 13:01, Ohad Levy wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Daniel Lobato Garcia > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Why don't we go with 4 at least until we find a better/feasible > model? It > would allow development to continue (the two PRs I mentioned + more). > There's plenty of time until 1.13 so I don't see why we can't move > forward, merge these PRs and figure out other packaging strategies if we > need to. > > I would ask that we define npm packaging as a blocker for 1.13 release, > and merge the https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/3433 (or a > variant of it)
Please don't merge patches to develop that will knowingly break the packaging of Foreman for a long period. It will leave the project with reduced testing for all releases, and it becomes increasingly difficult to fix. Use another branch or keep the pull request open. > If you got this far, you surely know if I'm missing something or you can > make some suggestions about which would be the best process, so please > reply. > > > thanks Daniel, its obvious you put a lot of effort into this, I tend to > agree with your logic above, mostly because assets (javascript, css etc) > gets minified/compress meaning all of your packages are build time only > (they never get to users), further, since option 2 (the one we initially > agreed upon in the pr discussion) already bundle some of the > dependencies, I would prefer option 3 (bundle it all in one package) as > does it really matters if break in into one bundle vs multiple bundles? Yes, it's easier to partially update or add packages if it's split up, particularly in stable releases. -- Dominic Cleal [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
