Hey Werner, To be complete here, what is the proposal for 3.0?
Thanks, Paul Nicolucci On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 9:54 AM Werner Punz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > >
