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

Update jQuery #1610

Closed
nilshoerrmann opened this issue Jan 16, 2013 · 12 comments
Closed

Update jQuery #1610

nilshoerrmann opened this issue Jan 16, 2013 · 12 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor

We should updated the bundled jQuery version to the latest release:
http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-final-released/

Needs some testing due to the API changes:
http://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/1.9/

@brendo
Copy link
Member

brendo commented Jan 17, 2013

We may even consider jQuery 2.0, considering we aren't doing anything special to cater for IE6-8 :) IE8 is a bit of a concern though, worth testing to find out what exactly would/wouldn't work.

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Symphony 2.3 doesn't support IE8 due to HTML5 markup. So that shouldn't be a concern.

@brendo
Copy link
Member

brendo commented Jan 17, 2013

Sounds great!

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

jQuery's migrate plugin might be helpful to find issues:
http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/31/jquery-migrate-1-1-0-released/

@brendo
Copy link
Member

brendo commented Feb 1, 2013

Good idea, it will at least let us know what's wrong (if anything!)

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is integration already for version 2.4 or is it still 2.3?
Could we bundle the migration script with 2.4dev so that this gets widely tested?

@designermonkey
Copy link
Member

It will still be 2.3.2 as it's not released. I am waiting myself for it to be 2.4 ready so I can push a shed load of commits.

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

What about creating a new branch for the 2.4 work?

@designermonkey
Copy link
Member

I think I already suggested that and got told not to :(

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

What's the logic behind that decision? @brendo?

@brendo
Copy link
Member

brendo commented Feb 1, 2013

Because we'll get distracted and won't deliver a 2.3.2.

@nilshoerrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this – everything needed is in pull request #1652.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants