Merge to upstream #1
Conversation
Too much risk of breakage in a future mkdocs release due to level of customisation. Risk vs benefit etc. This reverts commit 6996500.
`second` uses less resources and looks more appropriate for a fixed-size vector.
Plural (fields) -> include
|
Hi there! |
|
Huh, travis is failing because of the |
|
Hi! 👋 @werenall - Thanks for this. In our deployed applications with ssr, we have been running with the tip of this repo- and though it's been a few years, I'm not sure what upstream changes would benefit us (though, I'd bet there are some!). I believe we looked into getting this merged when the improvements were originally made (@charlesg3 would know more/remember better), but iirc there wasn't much understanding upstream of the benefits (for both test and ssr) of these improvements to the symmetry of clj/cljs. Very happy to know you've gotten some benefit from this effort. There are hundreds of forks of re-frame, no harm in you forking this one and moving forward on your own, if that turns out to be best. Regardless, hope you have a great day. |
|
I'm all for seeing if we can get this merged into original re-frame -- seems only sensible to try to get clj/cljs working together. |
|
Cool! So what can I do to help? |
Would getting your fork merged into the mainline |
|
Sure. I'll make sure to @ you guys however as it's you who did all the heavy lifting. I just did a rebase 😅 |
|
Alright, I created this PR. I squashed the changes to avoid the noise related to your internal s3wagon config. The following week I'll be busy with other project but I'll try my best to be active on this PR. |
|
Cool! 😎 |
This PR merges day8/re-frame's HEAD of the master branch.