On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 5:37:59 PM UTC+1, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 4:11:18 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like there is enough diversity of opinion that this discussion
>> should go on - first step seems to be deciding if we think the CLA
On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:37:59 AM UTC-6, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 4:11:18 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like there is enough diversity of opinion that this discussion
>> should go on - first step seems to be deciding if we think the CLA
>
On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 4:11:18 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote:
>
> Sounds like there is enough diversity of opinion that this discussion
> should go on - first step seems to be deciding if we think the CLA
>
Some links about CLAs:
https://julien.ponge.org/blog/in-defense-of-contributor-
Sounds like there is enough diversity of opinion that this discussion
should go on - first step seems to be deciding if we think the CLA and/or
gerrit-style review is important for all artifacts deployed to
org.gwtproject.
For the time being, it sounds like individual groupIds are the way forw
It could be hard to communicate and set expectations with a live
work-in-progress gwt-project repository and via publishing on maven
central. I agree with Jens on first setting up a foundation, rules and also
maturing what GWT3 is; and in the meantime let people iterate in their own
repos which wil
Oh and if its just about making these small projects more discoverable then
one could also create a single project, e.g. gwtproject/gwt3-migration and
use the wiki for documentation and/or git submodules to link in all these
small projects as well.
-- J.
--
You received this message because y
I've been over your gwt-events - looked good from 30 mins or so of poking
around, but largely copy/paste, so that makes sense right?
Removing old browsers seems reasonable - if we get issues filed asking for
old browser support, we can deal with that as needed, but these are meant
to be modern
You don't build a house starting with the windows, you need a solid
foundation.
IMHO you/we first need to figure out how these smaller projects should be
handled in the future. Does the gwtproject organization enforce
requirements on these projects or are they totally independent and just
sha
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote:
>
> Thanks guys - I guess I'm confused as to why Daniel and Thomas have their
> projects so far in their own repos, and not in github.com/gwtproject - I
> was following that example. If you guys are ready to move them now
Thanks guys - I guess I'm confused as to why Daniel and Thomas have their
projects so far in their own repos, and not in github.com/gwtproject - I
was following that example. If you guys are ready to move them now and ship
them (0.9 or 1.0-beta-n, either works for me) to central, then I have no
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:40:11 PM UTC+1, Andrei Korzhevskii
wrote:
>
> I vote for boring way, ie allocate these (module) projects on github and
> follow usual pull requests workflow and deploy it as snapshots during
> development.
> Reasoning is that I don't see much sense in spread
I vote for boring way, ie allocate these (module) projects on github and
follow usual pull requests workflow and deploy it as snapshots during
development.
Reasoning is that I don't see much sense in spreading community efforts in
multiple projects and then picking the right one.
--
You receiv
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:00:59 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote:
>
> I'm about to put out a blog post with a bunch of details on how one might
> port gwt-user.jar modules out (thanks to the hard work of those who have
> started this effort already, especially Dan Kurka and Thomas Broye
13 matches
Mail list logo