cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <>
Subject Re: Cordova JS, CordovaWebView and Coho
Date Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:04:52 GMT
The extra hash on the end was the reason for the re-tag of cordova-js.
Maybe you forgot to "git pull" and still have your cordova-js at the
previous tag?

Coho's not involved in any of that. The code is in

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joe Bowser <> wrote:

> After I let Andrew do the tagging of RC1, I noticed something that
> looks broken by the fact that I can't reproduce this result without
> using coho, and I can't find in the source where coho messes with the
> build labels.
> Now, as well all know, the JS is generated by Grunt.  Assuming that
> we're going to be building off the same branch for the JS, we should
> all be getting the same JS by doing this:
> git checkout 3.1.0-rc1
> grunt
> That produces a JS file with this header:
> 3.1.0-rc1-0-g0d70465
> However, when you look at the JS checked into Android, it's simply just
> this:
> 3.1.0-rc1
> Now, they're the same, but when we remove the hash from the build, we
> have to believe that it's the same thing.  What's worse, I can't see
> where in coho that we delete the hash from the build label.
> I know that this was cited as one of the things that I was doing wrong
> with the release process, but I have no idea why it's wrong to have
> the hash in the header of the JS, since this is what you get when
> manually generate the JS from the tag that is on the CordovaJS
> repository.  I think that this process isn't transparent, and I can't
> find anywhere in the coho command that messes with this.
> Anyone know why one is correct, and one is wrong? This seems pretty
> subjective.
> Joe

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