cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon MacDonald <simon.macdon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cordova JS, CordovaWebView and Coho
Date Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:40:49 GMT
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/4/40057/2482831-archer-1-phrasing.jpg
Simon Mac Donald
http://hi.im/simonmacdonald


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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
View raw message