Closed cap10morgan closed 9 years ago
Ah... this is a good idea.
However, there are two other PRs in the pipeline which makes this perhaps inconveniently timed. Maybe @danielglauser and @ericnormand would like to weigh in on who should have the PR with the big merge conflicts.
@tie-rack @danielglauser @ericnormand I'm happy to go last and handle the Big Merge™ myself.
Are there any issues to address within this PR in the meantime?
@cap10morgan I approve of this refunktoring. LGTM
Alright, I'll make this mergeable again.
OK @tie-rack & @ericnormand I've merged in the atomic transaction function stuff. Let me know if you disagree with where I put anything or any of the other changes.
The tests all pass.
@tie-rack @ericnormand Should we meet IRL about moving this forward next week?
Let's meet about this. I'm sure it's simple to resolve, it just is hard to do with text.
@ericnormand Agreed. Maybe we can do that right after we talk through the polling place in notifications architecture. I'll put something on the calendar.
@ericnormand & @tie-rack As agreed last week, I ported one component (election-works) to this branch of datomic-toolbox. I then built the krakenstein on it and ran it. It created the election and emailed me about it.
Anything else to do before we merge this and cut a release? Thoughts on the appropriate version number? I still think it's a 2.0.0.
2.0.0 for sure. It's a breaking change.
LGTM from me.
2.0.0 it is :)
As I was removing the resource-config dependency, I noticed a natural categorization of the functions. So this is an attempt to reflect that with namespaces.
The tests still pass, and I'm in the process of using it in the krakenstein with a component or two running on it. But I wanted to get this up for review now.
The namespaces break down roughly as:
This was a Friday project, so no Pivotal card.