cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tagging 3.1.0 today?
Date Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:51:01 GMT
Sounds good. Also updating download links to point to 3.1.0 instead of 3.0.0


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

> Blog post is live.
> http://cordova.apache.org/blog/releases/2013/10/02/cordova-31.html
>
> Final steps:
> Tweet the post (steve)
> Update DOAP file with .zip release (steve)
> Update the docs.cordova.io redirect (Michael B)
> Mark as released in JIRA (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/CB/versions)
> (steve)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Release is being uploaded as I type this email.
> >
> > Andrew, feel free to post the blog + update the site to say 3.1.0!
> >
> > Woot!
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think Apache is breaking Git, it's just git. This has happened
> > > before, where I commented on the ML about a tag that had the tagged
> > commit
> > > missing from any of the branches (I believe it was from a tag from Tim,
> > not
> > > calling you out here Tim, but just for precedence purposes as a
> concrete
> > > example for this current issue).
> > >
> > > I hadn't updated my local cordova-android repo since yesterday. I see
> > that
> > > a commit by Joe Bowser with subject "Tagging 3.1.0" with
> > > hash 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3 - this was from the 3.1.0
> > > tag. I searched using git for any local or remote branches (my last
> > Apache
> > > fetch) and it did not contain the commit.
> > >
> > > $ git branch --contains 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3 (for
> > local
> > > branches)
> > > $ git branch -a --contains 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3
>  (for
> > > remote branches)
> > >
> > > Thus, when someone pulled down the 3.1.x branch, it did not contain
> your
> > > commit. I assume, based on looking at the 3.1.x branch, and not seeing
> it
> > > tagged, that person then tagged it, and it appeared that your commit
> was
> > > removed. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise, imo.
> > >
> > > I have zipped up my local repo and can provide it to anyone if they
> want
> > to
> > > take a look.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Sorry, was away from my computer for a while there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe, sounds like what happened was that you pushed the tag without
> > > > pushing
> > > > > the branch. That has happened a few times in the past by others
> > > > (including
> > > > > myself). No biggie. The ASF repos disable git push --force, so I
> > don't
> > > > > think it's even possible for tampering to happen.
> > > >
> > > > I want github back! Apache is breaking git. :(
> > > >
> > > > As far as tampering, it's totally possible for it to happen.  Sadly,
> > > > it looks exactly like this.  I apologize for getting super aggro
> about
> > > > the git screw-up.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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