Two things:

1. When you ask someone whether you may use his code and he says 'No',
then you shouldn't (regardless of the license, that's my opinion).
2. If you manage to get closure working, I don't care about dotted
notation or not. If you don't get closure working, I rather not go back
to dotted notation. So, try to get closure working first (before you go
back to dotted notation). Note that it'll have to work for dynamic
loading. If I recall well, closure will change the code to dotted
notation anyway (even without maximal optimization).


On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 11:34 -0700, Sarvi Shanmugham wrote:
> 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.


-- 

--- 
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.

Reply via email to