Does anybody have an actual set of steps to create some sort of archival branch or can I just delete this project?
-Alex On 12/21/15, 7:50 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >Well garbage is relative. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, only that >the original authors were the ones that could understand it. > >As far as FlaconJX, I wrote that as a prototype based off of my prior >experience with AST traversing and the visitor pattern. That was almost 3 >years ago now so as far as it actually getting refactored on an >application >level with compilation unit passes, it never happened! :) > >When iw rote the front and backend I was more using the Flex compiler as a >template, and was slowing digesting how the multithreaded compilation >worked in Falcon. > >It that compiler was a full time/part time paid job for myself I could >easily put time into actually optimizing and documenting how the >compiler(Falcon) end actually runs. But that is not the case so we have to >guess right now what actually could be changed. > >Besides, my solution was just one and there may be other ways that the >compiler could transpile as to js way faster but it's what I knew at the >time and had already done it in a few other projects. > >Mike > >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> @Harbs, >> >> I don't know enough about Git and branching to know if this is the right >> way to "archive" stuff before deleting, but I would think that branch >> would need special handling after it is created because any attempt to >> merge with that branch might result in the deletion of that code. >> >> @Mark & Mike, >> >> Where would you create such an archive folder such that it doesn't show >>up >> when grep-ing the code? IMO, that's the goal: on GitHub and locally, I >> don't want these files to be found by search tools. >> >> @Mike, >> >> I would caution against calling that code base "garbage". It worked >>well >> enough to produce the early prototypes, and you never know when we might >> want to seek the advice and participation of its author. Yeah, some >>parts >> of it were really hard to learn, but it did do things that I had to go >>fix >> again in FalconJX, and I think FalconJX still runs several of the phases >> of the CompilationUnit code that we may need to stop doing some day for >> performance reasons and go through another round of bug fixing when we >>do, >> because semantic errors seem to be caught during reduction. FalconJS >>was >> leveraging the CompilationUnit phases. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 12/21/15, 3:27 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Yup, I agree, it doesn't really need to be deleted but it needs to be >>so >> >far away from FalconJX that a common dev wouldn't mistake it for >>anything >> >other than archived history. >> > >> >The code is garbage, another reason why FalconJX even exists, I hated >>that >> >code with a passion. :) >> > >> >Mike >> > >> >On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Kessler CTR Mark J < >> >mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> wrote: >> > >> >> Might as well make an archive folder that's generic and we can put >> >> anything else we want to keep but don't want in the main source >>areas. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Mark >> >> >> >>
