-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 0
RFC for steps to move to Refract 1.0 #13
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
text/0000-refract-1.0.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1.0.0 if we're using server 😉.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, yes, I was lazy :) I'll change.
text/0000-refract-1.0.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could also have a separate repo for each of these, if necessary.
|
I think we need to address the things mentioned in the RFC as part of 1.0.0. But I don't think we need to be hasty about it. I would like to have a bit more time and try refract in production first internally at Apiary so that we can change any breaking stuff first before moving to 1.0.0 For now, let's leave this PR as it is once everyone reviews it and keep adding to this if we come up with more stuff for 1.0.0 |
text/0000-refract-1.0.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is currently being proposed in #22 as a way to move toward using hyperlinking instead of namespacing like this.
This does not mean we remove the current namespaces. It does mean that the namespace functionality in the current spec will be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also saw #31.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I think #30 resolves this. Will update.
|
There are three things in this spec to accomplish. Namespacing is being discussed in another RFC and the other two are simply reorganizing some files. I propose we do these three things, yet still wait on moving completely to 1.0.0. If that works, I'll rework this RFC a bit to align with that idea and we can work on these few changes. |
text/0000-refract-1.0.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have moved the discussion to here:
#34
|
@smizell This needs to be updated. |
a400b99 to
e8a3629
Compare
|
The serialisation has been done. And there is an issue tracking the inheritance on the Refract Spec. So, should we close this PR? |
This document outlines some things we should consider as we move Refract to production environments.