flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as>
Subject Re: New Flex to JS project
Date Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:59:01 GMT
It's pretty much one command.  The same one you use to keep develop current
with your branch :)

-Nick


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> On git: let's assume I work on these branches for 6 months (while keeping
> them up to date with develop). How much of a hassle will it be to merge
> them back into their respective 'develop' branches?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You don't loose the history when rebasing ... you sort of serialize it.
> > Ok
> > > the order of commits is messed up, but I never really care about this.
> > > It might look less interesting in a GIT visualization tool where you
> > could
> > > see tons of different branches and merges, but it should be a lot
> easier
> > to
> > > maintain, as a serial history is definiely the one that causes the
> least
> > > trouble ;-)
> > >
> > > In IntelliJ I usually set my "update" operation to "Rebase" using
> "Stash"
> > > and have never really had any problems. One click on "Update SCM" and I
> > > still work on my featrue branch, but pull in all changes from develop
> or
> > > whatever branch I branched from. When it comes to commit, the commit
> > itself
> > > should be a fast-forward commit.
> > >
> > > But I guess there are several flavours here ... depending on the guy
> you
> > > ask or listen too, a different way will probably be recommended. I
> guess
> > > manually merging changes from develop to the feature branch is as valid
> > as
> > > rebasing, but I think rebasing is easier and causes less trouble, but
> you
> > > loose the "real-order" of commits (Which I don't really care about).
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> > I will let Erik decide if he wants to rebase or merge.  My recommendation
> > is that, since it is a feature branch, it will be useful to retain the
> > commit history intact.  So, merge makes sense.
> >
> > If Erik does not want to keep the commit history intact, rebase will just
> > work fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <omuppi1@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash
> > > Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 10:25
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: New Flex to JS project
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, just checking:
> > > >
> > > > I create a local branch, let's call it 'vf2js', off
> 'origin/develop'. I
> > > > select this as my active branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > So far so good.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If I then 'rebase', all changes that have
> > > > been made to 'origin/develop' will be pulled into my local branch? So
> > > far,
> > > > so good.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rebase at this point is not required.  The code from origin/develop is
> > > already in the 'vf2js' branch.  You will need to 'merge' from
> > > origin/develop into vf2js once in a while to make sure that you are in
> > sync
> > > with whats happening with origin/develop.  When you are done with the
> > > feature, you just 'merge' vf2js into develop.  If the history of the
> > > 'vf2js' branch is not important, then you use the rebase option.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But now I want the world to see what's in my local vf2js branch,
> > > > so I 'publish' it. Is keeping the remote copy of my local branch up
> to
> > > date
> > > > just a question of 'pushing' all commits to that remote branch?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that is correct.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Will
> > > > changes that come from the remote 'develop' via my local 'vf2js' also
> > in
> > > > the remote 'vf2js' that way?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cannot compute.  Can you rephrase the question?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > EdB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No effort at all ... that's what GIT rebase is for.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can think of this sort of an automated "Create-Patch, Revert,
> > > Update,
> > > > > Apply Patch" ... if all goes well, it's just this one command, if
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > conflicts, you get the usual conflict editor you would get anyway
> if
> > > you
> > > > > created conflicts on develop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > Von: Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
> > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:50
> > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Betreff: Re: New Flex to JS project
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm talking about FalconJX, not Falcon. The latter is the "new" SWF
> > > > > compiler, the former is the Flex to JavaScript cross compiler.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess a feature branch might work... But I'm afraid that keeping
> > that
> > > > > branch up to date with the 'develop' branch will add extra work.
> How
> > to
> > > > > best handle that part, so I don't spend what little time I have on
> > Git
> > > > > stuff instead of code?
> > > > >
> > > > > EdB
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think the reason for the overlay is that by this we are
> tricking
> > > the
> > > > > > FlashBuilder to use Falcon instead of the old compiler.
> > > > > > It should be possible to have Falcon separate from the normal
> > > compiler.
> > > > > > It's just that FlashBuilder will probably not be albe to use
it
> > that
> > > > way.
> > > > > > Probably IntelliJ would support this withn a few hours, Flexmojos
> > > > within
> > > > > a
> > > > > > few weeks and FlashBuilder never ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You shouldn't implement this in the develop branch but create
a
> > > > > > feature-branch instead that forks off the develop branch. This
> way
> > > your
> > > > > > changes are available to anyone interested and as soon as the
> > feature
> > > > is
> > > > > > finished, you merge it back to develop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > Von: Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
> > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:33
> > > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > > Betreff: New Flex to JS project
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm working on creating a way to publish vanilla Flex SDK
> projects
> > to
> > > > > > JavaScript on latest gen browsers. This project consists of
> several
> > > sub
> > > > > > projects, and I'm wondering what is the best way forward with
> > regard
> > > to
> > > > > > contributing them:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) two new namespaces and accompanying projects in the main
Flex
> > SDK:
> > > > > > vf2js_mx and vf2js_s. These namespaces will contain shim objects
> > for
> > > > (you
> > > > > > guessed it) MX and Spark components.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) two new code paths in FalconJX: one for AS and one for MXML
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) a new JavaScript library for the components and shims for
AS
> > > classes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) a testing framework for the JS components, loosely based
on
> > > > Marmotinni
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A - I would very much like to work in the 'develop' branches
of
> the
> > > > > > projects involved, but especially on the part of '1)' I'm not
> sure
> > > if I
> > > > > did
> > > > > > it right. All tests I can think of seem to pass, but maybe
> someone
> > > has
> > > > > the
> > > > > > time to do a code review on a branch that I can publish?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B - In order for this to work, FalconJX needs to be part of
the
> > > regular
> > > > > SDK
> > > > > > distribution. Folks who did this on the FlexJS overlay: what
does
> > it
> > > > take
> > > > > > to make FalconJX part of the SDK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's it, for now :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EdB
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > > > 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > > >
> > > > > > T. 06-51952295
> > > > > > I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > > 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > >
> > > > > T. 06-51952295
> > > > > I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ix Multimedia Software
> > > >
> > > > Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > >
> > > > T. 06-51952295
> > > > I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message