cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Mobile-Spec contains Cordova 2.7 tests
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:23:53 GMT
Ok never mind, after mucking around a bit more (I blame Xcode app transfer
caching and UFOs) that test now passes :) Will tag


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com> wrote:

> I don't have any problem with CB-2226 going out with 2.6.0, if it can; it
> was just in the list of commits that were made after the branch point.
>
> If you can get the 2226 fix into 2.6, then by all means do it :) And then
> the mobile-spec test for it can go in as well
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Yeah I learned that one today, too (thanks Ian/Braden)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Good tip, thanks!
> > >
> > > It seems like a rule that you learn one new thing about git every day
> :P
> > >
> > > On 4/5/13 11:48 AM, "Michal Mocny" <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Fil,
> > > >
> > > >I'll add that you can add a -x to cherry-pick line so that git
> > > >automatically inserts "(cherry picked from commit ...)" to the
> original
> > > >commit message.
> > > >
> > > >-Michal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 to reverting.
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 to Shaz's point, slowly people will learn. For the record, if you
> > > >>want
> > > >> to cherry-pick a commit from master into 2.6.x, you would do:
> > > >>
> > > >>     $ git checkout master
> > > >>     $ git log --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit HEAD^..HEAD # lets
> see
> > > >>the
> > > >> last commit
> > > >>     abcd123 some commit message
> > > >>     $ git checkout 2.6.x
> > > >>     $ git cherry-pick abcd123
> > > >>
> > > >> To be clear, this will create a *new* commit in 2.6.x, so don't be
> > > >> surprised if the SHA changes after you cherry-pick it in.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 4/5/13 9:51 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Let's revert, not rollback. I'm sure we expected some teething
> pains
> > > >> >adjusting to the new scheme.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Friday, April 5, 2013, Ian Clelland wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> It looks like a number of commits intended for 2.7.0 were
merged
> > back
> > > >> >>into
> > > >> >> the 2.6.x branch
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> My commits:
> > > >> >> dbf631c: [CB-2305] Add spec tests for InAppBrowser.insertCSS
and
> > > >> >> InAppBrowser.executeScript APIs
> > > >> >> 46e478f: [CB-2226] Add spec test for FileTransfer.abort error
> > > >>callback
> > > >> >> da89eaa: [CB-1517] [CB-1518] Add spec test for gzip-encoded
> > resources
> > > >> >> 2003ff7: [CB-1517] Add an assertion that progress.total <
> > > >> >>progress.loaded
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> were all committed to master after the 2.6.x branch was split,
> but
> > > >>then
> > > >> >> master was merged back into 2.6.x (acd1b96, Apr 2)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> There may be other commits in there that were merged
> accidentally;
> > I
> > > >> >> haven't looked at all of them yet. I think that any commits
from
> > > >>master
> > > >> >> which *should* be in 2.6.x should have been cherry-picked,
rather
> > > >>than
> > > >> >> merging master.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> From the iOS thread, I see that da89eaa was reverted, but
the
> rest
> > of
> > > >> >>them
> > > >> >> are still on the 2.6 branch.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's probably too late to just rewind the 2.6.x branch back
to
> > > >>f6cbe2e
> > > >> >> (rewriting public history and all that,) but should we revert
the
> > > >>other
> > > >> >> commits before we tag 2.6.0?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Ian
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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