cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <>
Subject Re: Cordova JS, CordovaWebView and Coho
Date Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:10:54 GMT
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 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 <> 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 <> 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

View raw message