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

Version 3 epic #163

Closed
11 of 14 tasks
NikolayRys opened this issue Jan 1, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed
11 of 14 tasks

Version 3 epic #163

NikolayRys opened this issue Jan 1, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
3.0 Roadmap for the next version Blueprint

Comments

@NikolayRys
Copy link
Owner

NikolayRys commented Jan 1, 2020

Features:

Tech:

  • Remove likely() in favor of likely.initiate() (see Clarify section about using API #82 (comment)). And constructor.
  • Join .likely_visible and .likely_ready into a single class: it’s unclear why they are ever separate. (This could probably be a large breaking change because people can rely on one of these classes.) And remove the deprecation warning.
  • Bundle both JS and CSS into one file. This will let us get rid of Gulp and switch to Webpack completely.
  • Change interpretation of attributes: Improve interpretation of attributes #172
  • Add contributing guidelines Add contributions guidelines #17
  • SVG icon strings encode SVG paths but omit the M letter in the code. This causes issues when contributors submit PRs providing this button (e.g. Add the LinkedIn button #101)
@NikolayRys NikolayRys added Blueprint 3.0 Roadmap for the next version labels Jan 1, 2020
@NikolayRys NikolayRys changed the title Version 3 backlog Version 3 epic Feb 19, 2020
@vitkarpov
Copy link
Collaborator

vitkarpov commented Feb 23, 2020

Join .likely_visible and .likely_ready into a single class

I'd suggest adding a deprecation warning first, like "We're going to remove timeout option and ready modifier at all. Please, file an issue if you know a good reason not to" in v3.0 and see who's going to file an issue.

@NikolayRys
Copy link
Owner Author

You are right, this actually might be a good reason to move some of the features into 2.5, let me think a bit which ones.

@NikolayRys
Copy link
Owner Author

NikolayRys commented May 24, 2020

Note for self:

  • review old branches if they contain anything worth considering\
  • review dependencies

@NikolayRys
Copy link
Owner Author

Now tracked separaterly

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3.0 Roadmap for the next version Blueprint
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants