cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Cordova JS, CordovaWebView and Coho
Date Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:40:45 GMT
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, that's pretty damn dishonest. I did pull and see that it was
> retagged like you said it was yesterday.  I think blaming me for using
> the old tag back before you retagged is a pretty crap thing to do.
>

Woah - I'm not blaming here, I don't actually even know for sure what's
going on. I just suggested that the symptoms you describe (about grunt
producing a header with a commit hash) is the reason I re-tagged the JS
(which I did yesterday), so it is likely explained by not pulling since
then. Not accusing you of anything here, just trying to help.


>
> Also, Why in the hell are we storing the version in
> CordovaWebView.java? Does it need to be there?  I thought that we've
> gone past having to hardcode Android versions in Java files.
>

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4725 - We have always had the
version hardcoded in Java. It was broken in 3.0 though by the Device plugin
being moved into a plugin. I put it in CordovaWebView.java so that we can
fix the Device plugin.




>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > 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
> > cordova-js/build/packager.js
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> 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
> >
> >
>

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