-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
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
Build system refactor #8140
Build system refactor #8140
Conversation
Builds ready [4ff258e]
Page Load Metrics (598 ± 61 ms)
|
experimenting with running each bundle in separate processes before (single)
after (separate)
|
on CI |
Co-Authored-By: Mark Stacey <[email protected]>
Builds ready [a1bdc8a]
Page Load Metrics (680 ± 34 ms)
|
I'm seeing this when a
|
I think this is ready to go after those last three changes. I've tested it out locally (with the above suggested changes) and it all seems to work |
Co-Authored-By: Mark Stacey <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Mark Stacey <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Mark Stacey <[email protected]>
great catches, thanks |
Builds ready [132758f]
Page Load Metrics (643 ± 49 ms)
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
The version bump script referenced the old file path for the manifest. It was stored as a single file called `manifest.json`, but it was split into `_base.json` and platform-specific manifests in #8140. The manifest version bump script has been updated to reference `_base.json`, which is the piece that has the version property.
The version bump script referenced the old file path for the manifest. It was stored as a single file called `manifest.json`, but it was split into `_base.json` and platform-specific manifests in #8140. The manifest version bump script has been updated to reference `_base.json`, which is the piece that has the version property.
This package has not been used since #8140. We now spawn separate processes directly in our build script rather than using this gulp plugin to do so.
This package hasn't been used since #8140, which dropped it for being too slow and of minimal benefit. We should consider re-adding this as a CI check to ensure images are optimized, but I don't think it should be re-added to the build process itself.
This package hasn't been used since #8140, which dropped it for being too slow and of minimal benefit. We should consider re-adding this as a CI check to ensure images are optimized, but I don't think it should be re-added to the build process itself.
This package hasn't been used since #8140, which dropped it for being too slow and of minimal benefit. We should consider re-adding this as a CI check to ensure images are optimized, but I don't think it should be re-added to the build process itself.
status: awaiting review
this is primarily a change to the "build/task system" and not the "bundling system"
change summary
prod
,dev
,testDev
,test
]. yarn script names unchanged for now.development/build/*.js
, gulpfile is goneprocess.argv
plz QA: your usual workflow