Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B049E8F1 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 35017 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2013 18:53:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 34982 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2013 18:53:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 34969 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2013 18:53:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:53:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bowserj@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.45] (HELO mail-vb0-f45.google.com) (209.85.212.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:53:15 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p14so9868796vbm.32 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:52:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=BFa223Wql1it2KTq6GruAt0Svmas3YT/s/bpbgcvuqo=; b=ww00LJT6VD/3wg2W2JexZVlyZjAURlzKO8P9JKBW+rEMX9iW1UaJ006VKf6cwki51s gliM3SibgXYbI1Co3SzMOKKKOc7FtKpt8icyhuFn5/fUZiH2WbXF9ZzWiSxCssDcYO1J q8BI0cTdP+OEGARgZHLqN0srJUV5YnQApLGf78+vVn7mS8QTV13qH9S617dZcsxJTMJN bZPEkcngYx07DPAyYbDl0LNsSZ8Ms0+oIGdq8B8imiXwF92MQsM1Rx5A2wJVuoB6N8P1 rR/iwtcDKQCemRa5VOSnsNvoddvUFv1Uhyktkk1TaPA3AOH0AxA8tn3nWIrsfdZ8DBTS zHIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.94.83 with SMTP id da19mr142130vdb.101.1372186374859; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.185.66 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:52:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final From: Joe Bowser To: dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the stack trace: Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch. Am I supposed to be on something else? Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we make it easier to debug when things go off the rails? jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/2.9.x On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag. > > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the tag-release > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's doing > the right thing. > > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js? > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser wrote: > >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person >> tagging everything. If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot >> box. It's bad enough that we can vote twice. >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release. >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js, >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about >> it not being on a named branch: >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488 >> throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not being >> on a >> ^ >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a named >> branch >> at retrieveCurrentBranchName (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15) >> at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9 >> at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9 >> at Array.forEach (native) >> at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11) >> at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5) >> at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint] >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5) >> at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25) >> at Object. (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1) >> at Module._compile (module.js:456:26) >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work? >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0 >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour. There's some good ideas >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably. >> >> Joe >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve >> wrote: >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of >> > the existing process. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> > >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is >> >> tested, stable, and works'. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser wrote: >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now? That seems like a >> >> > major process change. >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981 >> >> >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Sgtm! >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That >> >> gives >> >> >>> >us >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released >> before >> >> the >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9 >> >> >>> >release. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>