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 25342100A5 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:01:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5146 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2013 18:01:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 5114 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2013 18:01:18 -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 5096 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2013 18:01:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:01:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stevengill97@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.49] (HELO mail-qa0-f49.google.com) (209.85.216.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:01:08 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k15so656152qaq.1 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=a5LX3ZgD3LpGP0+8r4jLZ6jV80hD2rMZtNKqwyzR3FY=; b=Eglz5NGgj5RkfTSawLQbSgGbD87zdcfBbnNblbQyKCst1zskVBqS/82o0o9XcfseOy gMVgufARYiv698qAypp4d/E1QtYltjreUndGDSk2wROCeU+8sndHhe8tZhjcI7Y1E2Ft tLoAGINwjgZC9wr3qbYAg5hTKGOSubi7t8aAtX9nq8aH3Q7h5tLVNAbkUZ8DYb5o7WpI wN2Nrxo7bdWruUyLRQLGx9mReCYsHHCeOby6QngAPKLyJcQ4evKFR+RkSk/Ab6zXNPUJ /XKkPDaf0mr8/zgpSiH05EUmXb+xZVovfByHReTI+gfqM1jzBouCLm8qZKInO29pdGN0 5pgg== X-Received: by 10.49.1.42 with SMTP id 10mr6059776qej.58.1379700047852; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.20.136 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Steven Gill Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:00:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 3.1 Release To: dev@cordova.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b677e583fbade04e6d47348 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b677e583fbade04e6d47348 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hey Andrew, Need any help with this stuff? Let me know if you want me to take care some of these. -Steve On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Sounds good. I don't think we need a release branch on docs if it's not > adding benefit. > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Michael Brooks >wrote: > > > > > > > Michael: I noticed that the launch bug I created is missing any > subtasks > > > for cordova-docs (whoops!). Also - in the current CuttingReleases page, > > we > > > don't actually say that the docs branch should be created until once > > we're > > > ready to launch final. I think this is wrong, but wanted to know what > > your > > > thoughts are for it. I'm thinking: > > > - cordova-docs should have a release branch created as soon as the RCs > of > > > the platforms are tagged > > > - I don't think there's much value in having an RC tag for the docs, > > since > > > they tend to change a bunch post RC1 of platforms > > > - cordova-docs 3.1.0-rc1 should be uploaded to the website, but not be > > > made the default. We can keep re-uploading it as changes are made. > > > - Once we're ready for the final release, we delete the rc1 version, > > > upload the non-rc version, and make that the default. > > > Does this sound good? > > > > > > If possible, it would be nice to avoid creating any branches for the > > cordova-docs. When we have a branch, the maintainers need to apply their > > commits to both the master and the release branch. It's error prone and > > troublesome. Since we version cordova-docs by directory, can we skip the > > release branch without messing up the release process? Of course, this is > > temproary. When we switch the a new doc generator and restructure the > docs, > > we will version by tags and then we can adopt the release branch > approach. > > > > The rest of your steps are exactly how I see it working out. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Grieve > > wrote: > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > So - here's what I'm thinking for next steps: > > > > > > Friday: > > > - Remove "core" from plugin IDs > > > - Remove URLs from tags > > > - Do a plugins release > > > - Do a plugman release > > > - Do a CLI release, but don't tag it as "latest", tag it as "rc" > instead. > > > This will cause it to be installed only if you type "npm install > > cordova@rc > > > " > > > - Add "cordova platform update" instructions to the upgrade guides > within > > > the docs > > > - Upload RC1 of cordova-docs > > > - Write blog post about the availability of the RC1. Tweet it. > > > > > > Next Thursday: > > > - If everything seems fine with RC1, release 3.1.0 final. > > > > > > Sound good? > > > > > > > > > Michael: I noticed that the launch bug I created is missing any > subtasks > > > for cordova-docs (whoops!). Also - in the current CuttingReleases page, > > we > > > don't actually say that the docs branch should be created until once > > we're > > > ready to launch final. I think this is wrong, but wanted to know what > > your > > > thoughts are for it. I'm thinking: > > > - cordova-docs should have a release branch created as soon as the RCs > of > > > the platforms are tagged > > > - I don't think there's much value in having an RC tag for the docs, > > since > > > they tend to change a bunch post RC1 of platforms > > > - cordova-docs 3.1.0-rc1 should be uploaded to the website, but not be > > > made the default. We can keep re-uploading it as changes are made. > > > - Once we're ready for the final release, we delete the rc1 version, > > > upload the non-rc version, and make that the default. > > > > > > Does this sound good? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Shazron wrote: > > > > > >> Lets skip it, it's unchanged > > >> > > >> On Thursday, September 19, 2013, Andrew Grieve wrote: > > >> > > >> > Thanks Shaz. Do you want to do OSX as well, or should we skip that > for > > >> this > > >> > release? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Shazron wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > ios-deploy stuff a no go so I left it out (check out the issue for > > the > > >> > > sordid details) :( > > >> > > > > >> > > sorry for the delay, I had other pressing work related stuff. > > >> > > Tested mob-spec on iOS 7 and iOS 6 - it works fine, iOS tagged. > Only > > >> one > > >> > > failure on iOS 6 - contacts.spec.24. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Lorin Beer < > > >> lorin.beer.dev@gmail.com > > >> > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I was away a good chunk of yesterday due to a sick wife, getting > > BB > > >> > > tagged > > >> > > > today. Sorry for the delay. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Shazron > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Sorry for the iOS release guys I'm getting it out today > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Michal Mocny < > > >> mmocny@chromium.org> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Specifically, I think the section "Branch & Tag RC1 for > > Platform > > >> > > > > > Repositories" > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Michal Mocny < > > >> mmocny@chromium.org > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think its this one: > > >> > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Jeffrey Heifetz < > > >> > > > > > jheifetz@blackberry.com>wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I can take the responsibility of tagging BlackBerry. > Could > > >> you > > >> > > send > > >> > > > me > > >> > > > > > >> the wiki with instructions ? > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> From: Andrew Grieve > >> > > > agrieve@chromium.org > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Date: Thursday, 19 September, 2013 10:40 AM > > >> > > > > > >> To: dev > >> dev@cordova.apache.org > > >> > >>, > > >> > > > > > Jeffrey > > >> > > > > > >> Heifetz > >> jheifetz@blackberry.com > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: 3.1 Release > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> +Jeffrey - maybe you could take on the BlackBerry > component > > >> for > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > > >> release? > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael Brooks < > > >> > > > > > >> michael@michaelbrooks.ca >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> Once the platforms are tagged, I can handle the docs. > I'll > > >> need > > >> > to > > >> > > > > > review > > >> > > > > > >> our release process and see how the docs can best abide > by > > >> them. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Andrew Grieve < > > >> > > > agrieve@chromium.org > > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > Shaz - Thanks for the update :). If iOS is the last one > > >> then > > >> > I'd > > >> > > > say > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --047d7b677e583fbade04e6d47348--