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

Preserve original sourceContents from inSourceMap #566

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dotnetwise
Copy link

Fixes #563
Fixes #152
Somehow addresses #145 by preserving the original sources in the inSourceMap (if they are there)

This way you can do multiple transformations the source map e.g.
typescript / coffeescript -> js -> browserify -> exorcist -> uglify

Fixes mishoo#152
Somehow addresses mishoo#145 by preserving the original sources in the inSourceMap (if they are there)
@alappe
Copy link

alappe commented Oct 27, 2014

Hmm, so there travis ci error seems to be completely unrelated…, right?

Apart from that, 👍

@dotnetwise
Copy link
Author

Yep, looks so!

@ef4
Copy link

ef4 commented Dec 14, 2014

Thanks for this PR. Surprised it hasn't been merged, it seems high-value, low-risk.

@alappe
Copy link

alappe commented Dec 15, 2014

Yes… would be tremendously helpful if merged and released…

@rvanvelzen
Copy link
Collaborator

Resolved via ad18689

@rvanvelzen rvanvelzen closed this Jan 4, 2015
@dotnetwise
Copy link
Author

Merged someone else's copy paste of this pull request, interesting...

@rvanvelzen
Copy link
Collaborator

Merged someone else's copy paste of this pull request, interesting...

I preferred the code style of the other pull request. Think of it whatever pleases you.

@ef4
Copy link

ef4 commented Jan 6, 2015

Think of it whatever pleases you.

I'll think this project is sadly ignorant about how to support good contributions.

There's no way to know what style you prefer if you (1) don't document it anywhere, (2) silently ignore PRs like this for three months and then close them without explanation.

It's your repo. But if you want to actually get bugs closed faster, maybe it would help to grow the community a bit instead of driving potential help away.

@ef4
Copy link

ef4 commented Jan 6, 2015

In case I came across more harsh than intended: I'm not objecting to taking another PR. That just happens, and it's fine. I'm pointing out that the tone of the response in this thread comes across poorly.

@mishoo
Copy link
Owner

mishoo commented Jan 6, 2015

There are even older PRs that have been “ignored”, and I'm the one to blame for that. Sorry about it. @rvanvelzen might have simply stumbled across the other one first, and merged it — this happens; I don't see a reason for your frustration, now that the problem is finally fixed.

Again, I apologize for the delays and I honestly thank Richard for taking the trouble to curate the issues list.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

sourcesContent contains null --screw-oldie option needed
5 participants