Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 26, 2018. It is now read-only.

Proposal: Drop minsafe option and templates #452

Closed
eddiemonge opened this issue Nov 13, 2013 · 10 comments · Fixed by #489 or #559
Closed

Proposal: Drop minsafe option and templates #452

eddiemonge opened this issue Nov 13, 2013 · 10 comments · Fixed by #489 or #559
Labels

Comments

@eddiemonge
Copy link
Member

Since the project is built using ngmin in grunt, does it make sense to still have min-safe and minsafe templates? They add complexity to the code and if removed would make maintaining and testing easier.

@timelf123
Copy link

👍

@eddiemonge
Copy link
Member Author

@btford @passy @sindresorhus thoughts?

@sindresorhus
Copy link
Member

From what I can remember they're there because ngmin was quite unstable. Not sure if that still applies.

@eddiemonge
Copy link
Member Author

I would love to rip that out if no one has an objection. Granted, if people rely on minsafe because they created a project not using ngmin then the generator no longer will work for them. But for those people, updating to use ngmin could be a documentation update issue. Really, who wants to write all their code like ['name', function(name){}]. Ugh so ugly. Let it be done in the background.

@passy
Copy link
Member

passy commented Dec 4, 2013

+1

Even though ngmin has some edge cases it doesn't cover at the moment, you can still manually work around them. The minsafe branch complicates the code a lot and is a big maintenance burden that very few people actually benefit from.

@e-oz
Copy link

e-oz commented Dec 5, 2013

as addicted user of generator-angular, I ask you to not make me type additional option each time.
I thought programming is (also) about automation of repeating actions, so it would be "un-automation".

@btford
Copy link
Contributor

btford commented Dec 5, 2013

I'm personally for removing it.

@eddiemonge
Copy link
Member Author

@Jamm This would be getting rid of something that requires you to type additional stuff and automates it for you.

Deprecate in the next point release and remove in the one after that then? Any opposed?

@passy
Copy link
Member

passy commented Dec 5, 2013

sgtm
On Dec 5, 2013 4:42 PM, "Eddie Monge" notifications@github.com wrote:

@Jamm https://github.com/jamm This would be getting rid of something
that requires you to type additional stuff and automates it for you.

Deprecate in the next point release and remove in the one after that then?
Any opposed?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/452#issuecomment-29913915
.

@btford
Copy link
Contributor

btford commented Dec 9, 2013

👏

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants