I went through dry run of the merge. Its been a while and there were a lot
of changes.
Big ticket Items
1. Kees's change from doted notation to dictionary notation is causing
a lot of conflicts in one file.
2. The pyjs_site directory is gone from pyjs.org repo and is still
exists in pyj.be
3. The Calendar example seems to have gone through development on both
sides and from what I can tell for the same feature.
4. The directory restructure on pyjs.org side though git seems to be
smart about merging it well.
5. A long list of bug fixes on both sides.
My approach for the final run.
1. pick up the merges that are automatic.
2. directory structure and pyjs_site removal leave as is for pyjs.org
3. Calendar example exclude pyj.be changes since pyjs.org seems to have
the same functionality an is cleaner.
4. dot notation vs dictionary notation - I am not sure. From playing
around with closure compiler options. Looks like I can compile the closure
compiler
and eliminate property renaming in the advanced_optimizations, which will
still meet what Kees was trying to do with his changes, keep the generated
code readable
and also avoid a lot of conflicts. So this is leading me to think I should
restore it back to the doted notation and make the closure compiler changes
to match it
so that Kees's goals are still met. and then try the merge with pyj.be
after. would reduce the conflicts from what I can tell.
Kees, what do you think?
Sarvi
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:27:25 AM UTC-7, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
>
> I've already tried that once, a few months ago. And his answer was no.
> But I will definitely leave another note to Luke inviting him to work with
> us.
>
> Sarvi
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Sarvi Shanmugham <sarvil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> > I am in the process of pulling in changes from
>> > git://pyj.be/git/pyjamas.git master
>> > which has also seen bug fixes and development since the branch off.
>> >
>> > Just wanted to to make sure that people did not have any concerns in
>> doing it.
>> > Both are still BSD licensed open source code code with contributions
>> from
>> > not one but many and so I don't see any issues
>> >
>> > If yall have any concerns in doing it do let me know.
>>
>> Sounds sensible to me, although it would be nice to drop the authors of
>> those changes a note, thank them, and ask them to participate and
>> contribute directly to the main repository in the future.
>>
>> -glyph
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Pyjs.org Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pyjs-users/jdjHf3j1_oU/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> pyjs-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pyjs.org Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pyjs-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
