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

Discrepancy with @material-ui/core #1631

Closed
13 of 19 tasks
oliviertassinari opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed
13 of 19 tasks

Discrepancy with @material-ui/core #1631

oliviertassinari opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@oliviertassinari
Copy link
Member

oliviertassinari commented Apr 9, 2020

The purpose of this issue is to identify misalignment between the main repository and this one, see what improvement we can bring in any direction.

This issue fits into this effort mui/material-ui#19706.

The core idea around why this approach can help bring value:

  1. Put constraints in place to maximize the consitency of the developer experience on the whole library (user side).
  2. Make it easier for an engineer to contribute to the library, as a whole, no matter which component we are used to working on. Experimentations should go through small efforts / RFC and be rollout at 100% when successful, not scattered between components.
  3. Share knowledge, tools, and great practices learned the hard way. Any small incremental improvement to the CI, tests, etc compound. It can be very hard to share and enforce different repositories.

List of items

-import { Button } from '@material-ui/core';
+import Button from '@material-ui/core/Button';

Already with standalone issues

  /**
   * If `true`, the picker will be read-only.
   */
  readOnly?: boolean;

If anything is unclear or you would like to start a discussion on the why. Let me know :).

@oliviertassinari oliviertassinari added this to the v4 milestone Apr 9, 2020
@dmtrKovalenko
Copy link
Member

There are several points from the list I think pure antipatterns. We could discuss it further.

@oliviertassinari
Copy link
Member Author

oliviertassinari commented Apr 10, 2020

We could discuss it further.

@dmtrKovalenko Definitely :). Should we have a call? Otherwise happy to continue the conversation here in the writing (best so we can come back at it in the future) 👌

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants