Ok, we've had another round of review and updates, and it sounds like people are pretty content with the functionality and the conventions we're coming up with around LESS usage; and I don't hear many strong objections.
If there's no last-minute surprises from anybody, I'll drop the +2 hammer on the core support https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/78669/ later today, and folks can start using it.
-- brion
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
I personally think it'd be unfortunate for this current effort to
collapse
over such considerations, but I'm obviously biased.
Oh, I certainly agree. For my part, I'm satisfied that the LESS/Sass/stylus issues have been adequately thought through (maybe some
of
this can make it back into the RfC). The http://leafo.net/lessphp/docs/#custom_functions stuff looks very promising, it probably should be explicitly mentioned in any "LESS for MW" docs we write. I look forward to seeing the @import guidelines as well. --scott
Heartily agree as well. I alluded to this in my longer answer. Basically Stylus/SASS do seem to be slightly ahead of LESS but it's a vanishing difference and meaningLESS over the long term.
The biggest gains to be had from using a CSS preprocessor tend to come from the most basic features
This I think is a most astute point from Ori. It's why I made the analogy to Coco. I don't and never will use any of the complicated crazy Coco constructs. But writing class LineNode extends TimeseriesNode instead of all the JS boilerplate for classes and inheritance is good. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l