updating crichton reference

[brutski]

@fosrias please merge. Updating Gemfile to point to the latest crichton making crichton-demo-service work again.

[fosrias]

@HonoreDB So, given the making crichton private and the comments on the demo service, where are we? Are you guys just planning to fork this and use it internally? Any issues with this commit. Effectively this won't work without @brutski's change here.

[brutski]

@fosrias @HonoreDB as far as I remember they dropped supporting/using it. Instead it was planned to use blueprint.

[fosrias]

@brutski I forked current mdsol-share repo here: https://github.com/fosrias/crichton. What do you think about keeping this all in this repo? If so, how about updating the gemfile and maybe fixing the links in the README of crichton pointing here (or I can). Thanks for this and sorry I am slow to this. Tied up at RESTfest.

[fosrias]

@brutski Fixed docs myself: https://github.com/fosrias/crichton/pulls/1

[brutski]

@fosrias so I looked at your branch of crichton. Exactly what I was talking today: don't really like the latest commit, which adds descriptor_type element to API doc. My feeling is that it is trying to solve errors profile rdlint validation problem. So, I suggest you fork crichton from my repo into yours.
Also, I think, solution to this problem can be implemetation of exclusion list for rdlint, so we can exclude certain sections from being validated. As if it were a story: As an API doc developer, I should be able to exclude certain sections from being validated. Perfect use case: I've implemented only semantics section of the doc and want to know if it is valid or not. Thoughts?

[fosrias]

So, if things work should we leave it for now. They may change this and it would make it easier to pull over new releases if they happen. I agree it is less than optimal. Thoughts?

On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:25 PM, brutski notifications@github.com wrote:

@fosrias so I looked at your branch of crichton. Exactly what I was talking today: don't really like the latest commit, which adds descriptor_type element to API doc. My feeling is that it is trying to solve errors profile rdlint validation problem. So, I suggest you fork crichton from my repo into yours.
Also, I think, solution to this problem can be implemetation of exclusion list for rdlint, so we can exclude certain sections from being validated. As if it were a story: As an API doc developer, I should be able to exclude certain sections from being validated. Perfect use case: I've implemented only semantics section of the doc and want to know if it is valid or not.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[brutski]

@fosrias crichton-demo-service works. updated PR to point to git@github.com:fosrias/crichton.git; v.0.0.3

[fosrias]

@brutski Thx. Merging.