On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 11:05:34 PM UTC+2, Colin Alworth wrote: > > So, given either "make a git repo on gwtproject/ and add a jar to > gwtproject/tools" with the minimal history, or a single commit adding all > already-modified classes to gwt in one go? I should be able to turn out > either change fairly quickly, once we decide. > > Adding to GWT directly would be somewhat lower friction (no need to ship a > jar to central, easier to further tweak if something is screwy), but as I > said, loses that tiny bit of history/context. Like you said, a forked jar > is not at all new for the project to have, and is a nice way to say "this > is external, even if we tweaked it a bit". For the zip distribution I > imagine we'd shade it in to the overall zip, but for the m2 release it > would probably be an external jar (since it will hopefully never change). >
If you're worried about the size of the JAR, let's kill legacy DevMode instead ;-) (Google possibly even has the patch ready, as IIRC they already removed it in their internal repository) Let's keep it simple and just ship it inside the gwt-dev JAR; our other repackaged dependencies are in there already (protocol buffer, streamhtmlparser, GSS, Guava, jscomp –for sourcemaps–, etc.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/99e84a33-371a-4e26-bdb2-a542bd2c9dfco%40googlegroups.com.
