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

can.VERSION shows @EDGE but what about 2 years later? #418

Closed
jianlin opened this Issue Jun 1, 2013 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jianlin

jianlin commented Jun 1, 2013

Right now, I think Can.js 1.1.6 added this:

can.VERSION is @EDGE

but what about 2 years later, if a system is still using that Can.js file, when querying what can.js version it is, it will still say @EDGE, when can.js probably is 2.0 or higher.

@ccummings

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ccummings

ccummings Jun 1, 2013

Contributor

You are right, this was added as a fix to #316. I posed a similar question in that issue about what the GitHub version of CanJS should output as its VERSION. We were trying to avoid updating the version by hand, but you raise a good point.

Most complex projects like ours always force you to use a built version of their library. For example, you'd never use the files in the src directory of jquery. You make your modifications, do a build and use the output of the build. But with CanJS, you do use the src files if you want to use steal.

So we either 1) accept that VERSION will be inaccurate or 2) update the VERSION by hand or 3) Make a built steal version of CanJS similar to how we have a version for AMD.

I actually like 3 because there are lots of documentation, demo pages and tests in the GitHub source and a clean steal build might be nice. It makes working with CanJS similar to working with jQuery or any other relatively large library. You have source files, but the files you use in your application are the result of a build step.

@daffl what do you think?

Contributor

ccummings commented Jun 1, 2013

You are right, this was added as a fix to #316. I posed a similar question in that issue about what the GitHub version of CanJS should output as its VERSION. We were trying to avoid updating the version by hand, but you raise a good point.

Most complex projects like ours always force you to use a built version of their library. For example, you'd never use the files in the src directory of jquery. You make your modifications, do a build and use the output of the build. But with CanJS, you do use the src files if you want to use steal.

So we either 1) accept that VERSION will be inaccurate or 2) update the VERSION by hand or 3) Make a built steal version of CanJS similar to how we have a version for AMD.

I actually like 3 because there are lots of documentation, demo pages and tests in the GitHub source and a clean steal build might be nice. It makes working with CanJS similar to working with jQuery or any other relatively large library. You have source files, but the files you use in your application are the result of a build step.

@daffl what do you think?

@daffl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daffl

daffl Jun 3, 2013

Contributor

I think the main issue that @jianlin was mentioning is that @EDGE didn't get replaced with the actual version in the release files (https://github.com/bitovi/canjs.com). I will update that as well as adding construct/proxy again. I also agree that we should have a clean Steal release in there as well.

Contributor

daffl commented Jun 3, 2013

I think the main issue that @jianlin was mentioning is that @EDGE didn't get replaced with the actual version in the release files (https://github.com/bitovi/canjs.com). I will update that as well as adding construct/proxy again. I also agree that we should have a clean Steal release in there as well.

@ghost ghost assigned daffl Jun 14, 2013

@daffl daffl referenced this issue Jul 3, 2013

Merged

Build cleanup #445

@daffl daffl closed this in b27ef8c Jul 4, 2013

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment