Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bowserj@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: bowserj@apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABiQX1V1MTfY+g7n-cV4z5gKUeZeUy6w4WRiHoCS5WEFemX27w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOBL_k52WJV8427=OgBToqLDryY4xTrd9xF9feVNSAq3PTWT8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1V1MTfY+g7n-cV4z5gKUeZeUy6w4WRiHoCS5WEFemX27w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:10:54 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOBL_k4KCSrvYJx3VBZd3PiadwtCJdWUTPV_wzanHsgfQBd1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cordova JS, CordovaWebView and Coho
From: Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
Cc: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>
>