Hello everyone, sorry for the informal vote, but Paul Nicolucci had the idea.
We had the discussion before, and no one really has objected, but I want to vote on this. The issue is: We have divergent codebases for the jsf.js for 2.3 between next and 2.3.x and 4.0 next was derived from 2.3 but got rid of tons of legacy code and hence uplifted the browser baseline to IE9 atm. This is becoming a maintenance burden because I basically have to maintain 4 different code branches for every fix. 2.3 2.3-next 4.0 and 4.0 Typescript which will replace 4.0 hopefully soon. On top of that we have a ton of custom parameters I want to cut down like expanded, complete at... which load different aspects of the build my goal is to have only development and production with development being an uncompressed build and production being a compressed build. I18n also will be phased ont on the javascript side and an include of its own (i18n is deprecated anyway, no one really used it to my knowledge and the RI does not have it) The thing is I merged all this recently into 2.3 given that there was no negative feedback, but I can revert this change easily. Given that 2.3 is a stable codebase, it is better to vote on this before either keeping it that way or reverting it back. Some users might rely on older browsers still and cutting them off from a stable branch might be a bad idea. So here is my Question Do we want this, less code on the jsf.js side, reduced configuration, but also lifting the browser baseline and that in a stable branch? Yes or no? Please do a proper vote with +1 being YES, and -1 being NO! This is an informal vote, from my side! Werner
