Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge canary and master #72

Closed
Neitsch opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 9 comments
Closed

Merge canary and master #72

Neitsch opened this issue Feb 17, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

@Neitsch
Copy link
Collaborator

Neitsch commented Feb 17, 2017

I think we should merge canary back into master. It's hard to keep both branches in sync.
Thoughts?

@lvarayut
Copy link
Owner

lvarayut commented Feb 20, 2017

Totally agree with the hardness of keeping both branches in sync. The only problem is that Flow type, databases, and much more should be optional, which should be done using Yeoman. If we merge canary and master, this will force all users to use Flow type, our chosen database, and etc. Here is my initial thought.

@Neitsch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Neitsch commented Feb 20, 2017

Okay, then I'll seriously look into subgenerators :)

@Neitsch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Neitsch commented Apr 13, 2017

I've created a new branch yeoman-experimental. Please look into it, if it makes sense. I can't PR it to yeoman-generator, because GH won't let me.
@lvarayut you will need to add keys. You can base it on this tutorial (https://gist.github.com/domenic/ec8b0fc8ab45f39403dd). Since we're using circle CI you'll have to replace the call to travis encrypt with the raw call (https://github.com/circleci/encrypted-files)

@lvarayut
Copy link
Owner

lvarayut commented Apr 14, 2017

Hey @Neitsch, thanks for creating the experimental branch. It's going in the right direction that we were discussing. I think the easiest way that we could do is to move all the files inside the canary branch into generators/app/templates folder, inside the yeoman-generator branch. So, our yeoman-generator will work as expected.

Then, we could write a script to automatically generate the master branch from our yeoman-generator. What do you think?

@Neitsch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Neitsch commented Apr 15, 2017

Yeah, I guess I can do the whole thing from the generator branch instead. Will work on the PR soon then.
My plan is to first only generate canary. After that I'll add a flag --master or something like that and work with jinja templates, so that we can generate master or canary from the same codebase.

@Neitsch Neitsch assigned Neitsch and unassigned lvarayut and ncrmro Apr 15, 2017
@lvarayut
Copy link
Owner

lvarayut commented Apr 15, 2017 via email

@lvarayut
Copy link
Owner

lvarayut commented Jun 2, 2017

@Neitsch, could you please update the current status of this issue? I'll be free this weekend, would like take some tasks of the issue.

@Neitsch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Neitsch commented Jun 8, 2017

Hi @lvarayut , sorry I've been slacking off on work. Right now work is pretty busy. We'll first have to merge relay router. Then we we have a good working basis to get the generator going.

@lvarayut
Copy link
Owner

I've merged the canary into master. We would stop maintaining the yeoman branch for now until we can find a good way to maintain it.

In conclusion: two active branches:
master contains stable code
canary contains experimental code that might not be stable yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants