On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
> On 2012/04/05 20:44:10, jat wrote:
>
>> It seems like there should be some test for this to make sure it keeps
>>
> working.
>
>> Could you extend SingleScriptLinkerTest to make sure that it handles
>>
> collapsing
>
>> soft permutations?
>>
>
> Sure. Can
Leave it in. We've already spent way too long debating a simple string
field. I don't feel strongly enough that it should be removed.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Wow, you're right. Good catch. I'll follow up and see what's going on here..
On Thu Apr 05 17:02:10 GMT-400 2012, wrote:
>
> > Looks like this one is not going to be accepted.
>
> It was actually already committed...if the decision was to not add it,
> it needs to be reverted.
>
> http://gwt-cod
Looks like this one is not going to be accepted.
It was actually already committed...if the decision was to not add it,
it needs to be reverted.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I'd like to get it in if possible.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Rajeev Dayal wrote:
> We're gearing up for a GWT 2.5, so I'd either like to get this in, or
> close the issue if it will never make it into a GWT release.
>
> On Thu Apr 05 15:42:05 GMT-400 2012, wrote:
>
>> On 2012/04/05 19:39:
We're gearing up for a GWT 2.5, so I'd either like to get this in, or close
the issue if it will never make it into a GWT release.
On Thu Apr 05 15:42:05 GMT-400 2012, wrote:
> On 2012/04/05 19:39:54, rdayal wrote:
> > Ping. Is this patch dead, or do we still want to get this in?
>
> I remember