[dojo-contributors] Prototype-al simplicity
paul at idontsmoke.co.uk
Thu Apr 6 20:41:37 EDT 2006
On 7 Apr 2006, at 01:21, Scott J. Miles wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2006, at 00:28, Paul Sowden wrote:
>> Well 0.3 should be pushed.
> Does pushed mean delayed? Perhaps it makes sense to release 0.2.3?
> I have a problem because our library builds on top of Dojo and half
> my users are using HEAD and half are using 0.2.2.
Pushed means released. As a young fast moving project I think we
should aim to release early and release often. Because we don't have
resources to ensure development of particular parts I think blocking
should be dynamic and should allow us to release every couple of months.
I think, to some extent, the release schedule needs to meld around
the movement of the project, not the other way around. Otherwise the
code base grows stale as we block.
>> Basically I'd like opinions on this, is this what people were
>> gunning for when we talked about the issue or am I on my own path?
> I'm completely on board. Building a dojo-core makes 100% sense and
> it looks like we will clean things up as a side benefit.
Great! And yes, it should!
> Right, this is what I meant at the meeting when I mentioned
> 'extras.js' not being extra at all. Seems like some focused
> attention on cleaning up dependencies and moving things around can
> generate fruit.
Yes. This is what I'd like to do next, basically audit these
modules, deciding which APIs belong and which don't and then mould
the dependencies so that it's all super clean.
I hope that once this happens for core we can proliferate it through
the whole code base as we decide which other denominations should be
rolled for mass distribution. My hope is that this process will also
benefit those using the dependency system to build custom files, like
>> Overall I think this is a solid and noble set of modules to
>> include as a dojo-lite and should make us very attractive, I know
>> it will to me.
More information about the dojo-contributors