cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: tag 2.6.0rc1 soon?
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:01:21 GMT
Originally I thought it would be great to get it into the
docs.cordova.iodocs, but then the audience is pretty small
(committers) - in my opinion
the wiki would be better for that.

My 2 cents is the ContributorWorkflow (
http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/ContributorWorkflow) would be a better
candidate for getting into cordova-docs -- we do want our general dev-users
to contribute fixes, etc. Filing a bug should be part of the Contributing
section as well: http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/ReportingBugs


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org>wrote:

> Yes, that's on my list of things to do. I'm making progress along that
> list, but it's currently outrunning me.
>
> Do people like the idea of putting this doc into the docs.cordova.io docs?
> Or do we prefer to keep contributor-related things in the wiki? If the
> latter, it can wait, but if the former then I should probably commit it
> very soon.
>
> Braden
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > Braden also published this detailed guide for contributors on the topic:
> >
> >
> >
> https://googledrive.com/host/0B8sLcyOAEX-XUHAxNXhISE5rTTg/guide_contributing_index.md.html
> >
> > (Which I'm guessing will make its way into our docs proper?)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > Alright folks, mobile-spec and cordova-js are tagged 2.6.0rc1, and the
> > > 2.6.x branches on both those repos are now pushed up. Gogo release
> mode!
> > >
> > > On 3/21/13 9:12 AM, "James Jong" <wjamesjong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Nice.  Thanks Michal.
> > >>
> > >>-James Jong
> > >>
> > >>On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, the intent is to have living branches.  We may also cherry-pick
> > >>> regressions back to more than just the current release.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM, James Jong <wjamesjong@gmail.com>
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks Braden.  Is the intent to have 'living' branches for each
> major
> > >>>> release (e.g. 2.6, 3.0) which contain tags for release candidates
> and
> > >>>>minor
> > >>>> revisions?  So going forward we would have 2.6.x , 3.0.x, ...
> > branches?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -James Jong
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
> braden@chromium.org
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I meant to send an email about this last night. Here's the
> > >>>>>(high-level)
> > >>>>> process we'll need to follow for each of the repos.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Step 0: This time only, delete the 'next' branch. We're not
using
> > them
> > >>>>> anymore, and they'll just add confusion.
> > >>>>> Step 1: Checkout and pull master.
> > >>>>> Step 2: git checkout -b 2.6.x (now you're on the new branch
2.6.x)
> > >>>>> Step 3: tag 2.6.0.rc1 (on the 2.6.x branch)
> > >>>>> Step 4: Push the branch and tag.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> NB: The branch is for the minor revision (ie. 2.6.x) not the
point
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> (2.6.0). The branch will have tags called 2.6.0rc1, 2.6.0rc2,
etc.
> > and
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>> 2.6.0. Any 2.6.1 that we do will be on this 2.6.x branch as
well,
> > just
> > >>>>> adding more tags.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Remember that commits always land in master first. Regression
fixes
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>> be cherry-picked to 2.6.x after being committed to master.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Braden
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM, James Jong <wjamesjong@gmail.com
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is the new release branching process for 2.6 posted somewhere?
 I
> > >>>>>>didn't
> > >>>>>> see it searching through the emails.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -James Jong
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Braden Shepherdson <
> > braden@chromium.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My changes are in.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Alright sounds like we need to wait on those pull
reqs.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Braden, if you get it in time, great, otherwise,
not a big deal.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Related: can someone recap the newer release/branching/tagging
> > >>>> approach
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> talked about at the face-to-face (and let's decide
if we want to
> > >>>>>>>>use
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>> not)?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 3/20/13 9:20 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get CB-52 for FileTransfer upload/download
and
> the
> > >>>>>>>>> keyboardformaccessorybar re-fix in as well
- also seeing if the
> > >>>>>>>>> FileTransfer mobile-spec stuff works to test.
Was planning on
> > >>>>>>>>>pulling
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>> the iOS pull requests but may not have time,
but it seems
> Andrew
> > >>>>>>>>>is
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>> already :)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Braden Shepherdson
> > >>>>>>>>> <braden@chromium.org>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm working on rolling some of the plugin
JS loading logic
> into
> > >>>>>>>>>> cordova-js.
> > >>>>>>>>>> If that makes this release then it will
be possible to play
> with
> > >>>>>> plugman
> > >>>>>>>>>> without also needing bleeding-edge JS.
Note that this logic
> > >>>>>>>>>>won't be
> > >>>>>>>>>> active
> > >>>>>>>>>> if there are no plugins, so it shouldn't
be a high-risk change
> > to
> > >>>>>> slide
> > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> before a release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Andrew
Grieve <
> > >>>> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Time's feeling right for a release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm planning on going through pull
requests today. Makes
> sense
> > >>>>>>>>>>>to
> > >>>> get
> > >>>>>>>>>> those
> > >>>>>>>>>>> all in before starting the release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:49 AM, James
Jong
> > >>>>>>>>>>><wjamesjong@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A couple of items I'd like to see
get into 2.6:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Lorin's EXIF camera implementation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) adding prompt dialog to the
Notification API (completed,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>just
> > >>>>>>>>>> needs
> > >>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be merged in)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/24
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-js/pull/21
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-ios/pull/35
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/35
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-mobile-spec/pull/13
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -James Jong
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Brian
LeRoux <b@brian.io>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya braden put that huge thread
on the list w/ the docs..
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:22
PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Haha have we even brought
back the new method to the list
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>since
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> F2F?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/13 3:21 PM, "Brian
LeRoux" <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, lets give this
new method a go.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013
at 1:24 PM, Filip Maj <
> fil@adobe.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How we feeling
for that? Are there any outstanding
> > features
> > >>>> out
> > >>>>>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are on the cusp
of landing, or can we go into rc + test
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mode
> > >>>>>>>>>>> soon-ish?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message