Bring up to date with Flixel-Community

[greysondn]

This is one of those big projects. I'm happy to contribute the snatches I may translate over soon enough, but I think at least a dev branch in the main repo or something similar would be "nice" before attempting to do so.

[Dovyski]

That is great! Thanks for the interesest on keeping Flixel Power Tools updated.

A dev branch seems like a nice idea to me. Inspecting FPT branches, I've noticed the 2.0 one though. It contains some structural changes that @photonstorm was working on. Would you like me to create the dev branch off of master or 2.0?

[greysondn]

photonstorm:2.0...master

Given the diff, my sincere opinion is that throwing away a decent hunk of work (especially where it's not something I'm likely to touch) is bad. Can we vet it into master?

Otherwise dev comes off 2.0 and can rejoin master at such time as it can be vetted to match at least flixel-community 3.0 as a static target (I am only one man. I'd love to chase a moving target, but...)

I am willing to fix problems that I am able to see and/or fix as I work with the Power-Tools, basically committing fixes I make upstream... however, I must point out that most of my work has been in refactoring and hand-inserting patches and this is not likely to be different. Most of my changes would be simply to update the API to match what I understand as the next current milestone for Flixel-Community.

It may be in our interests to try to get the outstanding pull requests rebased, too, but I'll leave that at maintainer's discretion.

[Dovyski]

I agree with you, that approach is perfect! Do you think you can manage to do it all by issuing pull requests?

[greysondn]

I am quite alright with issuing my work as pulls. I'm not sure what else you may be asking of me here.

[Dovyski]

I am not asking anything else :) You are good to go. We will discuss/review the PR's (if needed) as they arrive.

[greysondn]

I sat down to tackle a piece of this for this morning. Yet, there is no dev branch.

Clearly something is misunderstood here, though "who" and "what" is likewise not clear to me.

[Dovyski]

I'm sorry about that! I've just created the branch. I think you should be able to work on this now.

[greysondn]

As I mentioned in Flixel-Community Iss. 227, I'll be working against 7232E06F

[Dovyski]

Ok, go ahead.

[greysondn]

Relatively easy question this time. Would you prefer that I leave classes where they are or move them someplace more aligned with the current flixel-community hierarchy?

For example, the first class I find myself working on is FlxBitmapFont . It has a fully-qualified name of org.flixel.plugin.photonstorm.FlxBitmapFont.

• Telling me "yes" means to move it to the current equivalent in plugin namespace for flixel-community. Its fully-qualified path name will become flixel.plugin.photonstorm.FlxBitmapFont (if that's not agreeable, I'm certainly open to other namespaces other than photonstorm.)
• Telling me "no" means to leave it alone. It will retain the fully-qualified name org.flixel.plugin.photonstorm.FlxBitmapFont.

There's no hurry on this one - all I'd have to fix, presumably, is my own imports right now after the move - but there may be commits that are just "move file to new location, fix name".

[Dovyski]

I think moving them to the current flixel-community hierarchy is the best way to go. Keeping the old org.flixel prefix instead of the new flixel. one will only cause confusion.