rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Require.js in 0.22
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:44:29 GMT
I can probably find time to test and perform the release this week.

If we could update the docs at
http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html to reflect the he release
scripts we have available at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/release-management/ that would
be helpful to me. I performed the last release but only sort of
remember how to do it. Ha...

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Also, to your comments Sean - I assume you are referring to 0.22 and
>> > 0.23-SNAPSHOT?
>> >
>> > In general I don't like the idea of worrying about pushing breaking
>> > changes into the trunk because of people relying on snapshot.
>> > Production systems shouldn't be depending on nightly builds, right?
>> >
>>
>> Shouldn't & are are two different things.  Do any of you who would like to
>> spin a release have time to validate trunk today?  If everything checks
>> out, I am +1 for release and then merge this week.
>>
>> If trunk is not releasable though, I say lets delay a month and release
>> with require js.
>>
>
> If someone can do the release I'm definitely +1 for a release prior to
> merge. There isn't much in there that is done but there are a couple good
> bug fixes.
>
> Chris
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > Ok. Are we ready to release 0.22? I'm fine with release first, but I'd
>> > like
>> > > to get require into trunk relatively soon so we can take advantage of
>> it,
>> > > and also so that we can keep the require, angular branches and trunk
>> all
>> > > fairly in sync.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Sean Cooper wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1
>> > >>
>> > >> This will save anyone that is using 0.21 SNAPSHOT.  Release 0.22 and
>> > then
>> > >> merge onto 0.22 SNAPSHOT
>> > >>
>> > >> -Sean
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal
>> > >> <jasha@apache.org>wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > It's been 2 months since the last release. Let's do a 0.22 release
>> > first
>> > >> > with the bug fixes and improvements. After the release merge the
>> > require
>> > >> > branch into trunk and document how to migrate existing
>> installations.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Jasha
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 1 July 2013 16:38, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > IMO, latter; but, I would allow 72 hrs for lazy consensus
review.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Other opinions?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Hi All,
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > The require.js branch is nearing completion, and I expect
it
>> will
>> > be
>> > >> > > > ready to bring back into trunk within the next day or
two.
>> Should
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > merge be submitted as a patch through the review board,
or
>> should
>> > I
>> > >> > > > just go ahead with it when it is ready, and provide
an 0.21 ->
>> > 0.22
>> > >> > > > guide?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne
>> > >> > > > <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > Hey all, just to be clear since Dan's patch created
a bit of
>> > >> > confusion
>> > >> > > > > - I created a "require" branch for this task. Since
this is a
>> > >> > > > > pretty
>> > >> > > > > broad change I felt we needed a branch to collaborate
and
>> > complete
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > changes. I am expecting a number of patches to
be submitted
>> > >> > > > > against
>> > >> > it
>> > >> > > > > in the next couple weeks.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin
<
>> > >> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chris Geer
>> > >> > > > >> <chris@cxtsoftware.com
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >>
>> > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Erin Noe-Payne
<
>> > >> > > > erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > >>> >wrote:
>> > >> > > > >>>
>> > >> > > > >>> > Specifically, the idea of require
js is to take all
>> > references
>> > >> > off
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > > > >>> > the global namespace and to build
out and resolve a
>> > dependency
>> > >> > tree
>> > >> > > > >>> > for your client side code.  So if
we made it optional,
>> then
>> > >> > someone
>> > >> > > > >>> > who wanted to take advantage of the
feature would need to
>> > >> > > > >>> > overlay
>> > >> > > any
>> > >> > > > >>> > place where there is a reference to
the global rave
>> object.
>> > >> > > > >>> > That
>> > >> > > > >>> > includes jsps where there is a script
block that uses
>> > rave.*,
>> > >> > > > >>> > and
>> > >> > > > wrap
>> > >> > > > >>> > that in a require block. You would
also need to overlay
>> the
>> > >> > > > >>> > java
>> > >> > > > class
>> > >> > > > >>> > that inserts rave.registerWidget(...)
onto the page and
>> wrap
>> > >> > those
>> > >> > > in
>> > >> > > > >>> > require blocks. Also any jsp that
has an onclick="rave.*"
>> > >> > > > >>> > event
>> > >> > > > >>> > handler, those would need to be moved
to jquery bindings
>> and
>> > >> > > wrapped
>> > >> > > > >>> > in require blocks. Once you had that
you would overlay the
>> > >> > > > >>> > rave_script.js tag so that instead
of link all the
>> scripts,
>> > >> > > > >>> > you
>> > >> > > just
>> > >> > > > >>> > reference require.js with a data-main
attribute pointing
>> to
>> > >> > > > >>> > your
>> > >> > > > >>> > bootstrapping script. (See
>> > >> > > > >>> > http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html
>> > >> > ).
>> > >> > > > >>> >
>> > >> > > > >>> > If instead we make a breaking change,
then we would do all
>> > of
>> > >> > > > >>> > the
>> > >> > > > >>> > above work on trunk. An implementer
who wanted to go to
>> 0.22
>> > >> > would
>> > >> > > > >>> > then be responsible for updating their
scripts to be
>> written
>> > >> > > > >>> > as
>> > >> > AMD
>> > >> > > > >>> > modules (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#define).
The
>> > >> > > > >>> > script
>> > >> > is
>> > >> > > > >>>
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message