cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Cordova 3.4.0 release
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:43:56 GMT
A note on best practice. Prior to calling a release (i.e. when an RM is
stepping up to create a release) there should be a "[DISCUSS] release x.y.z"

This provides a place for people to air concerns without affecting the VOTE
thread. Ideally the VOTE thread is just a series of +1s and, in exceptional
circumstances, some -1's See my other thread for clarity on what -1's mean.

Ross

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation





On 19 February 2014 10:37, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> This well illustrates my concern with tying a release to a vote thread.
> There is always going to be a reason to -1, there will always be important
> fixes, and there's always going to be a delays.
>
> The security issues are definitely worthy of a patch release. I don't see
> these windows issues as blocker for this release. Indeed this release
> ideally happened a month ago.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1, only because of issues recently found, I think we should address them
> > and re-try 3.4.0
> >
> > >> Isn't that *why* we have release candidates?
> >
> > Yes, but we should not be adding features between release candidate and
> > release.  In this case it is a pretty critical issue, so having looked at
> > it more, I think we should apply the patch.
> >
> > >> The right thing would be to make
> > >> another 3.4.0 (and another if necessary) and vote on *that* one.
> >
> > I agree
> >
> > >> .. Was hoping that the following 2 changes are added for the Windows
> > Platform.
> >
> > If we are doing another release, these changes are extremely low impact,
> > and I would like to include them in 3.4.0
> >
> >
> > @purplecabbage
> > risingj.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH) <
> > panarasi@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > Was hoping that the following 2 changes are added for the Windows
> > > Platform. They may need to be in a major release .
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/15 - version of MS
> Build
> > > that is causing issues due to different combinations of Windows 8 and
> > > Windows 8.1, VS 2013 and VS 2014.
> > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/16 - related to
> developer
> > > certificates
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
> > > Mocny
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:44 AM
> > > To: dev
> > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Cordova 3.4.0 release
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:59 AM, purplecabbage
> > > > <purplecabbage@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IMO, If it was not in the release candidate, it should not be
> pushed
> > > > > into the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we need to turn around and do a 3.4.1 to address an issue, then
> > > > > we can do that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that *why* we have release candidates?
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this just a case where 3.4.0-rc1 goes to 3.4.0-rc2 (and gets
> > > > voted on
> > > > again) before it becomes 3.4.0 final?
> > > >
> > > > It seems a bit off to have to sacrifice the "3.4.0" name because of a
> > > > release candidate that was voted down. The right thing would be to
> > > > make another 3.4.0 (and another if necessary) and vote on *that* one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Totally agree.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 18, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's one iOS fix that I think we should put it (as is just
> > > > > > being discussed on private ML).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:57 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The NOTICE file is incorrect.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The date still says 2012; it should be updated
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The line
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This product includes software developed by
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> should be [2]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This product includes software developed at
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The distinction is important.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The source archive NOTICE file contains the wording
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "This product includes software developed by Ant-Contrib
project
> > > > > >> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ant-contrib). "
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It seems this relates to ant-contrib-1.0b3.jar which as
far as I
> > > > > >> can tell is not *included* in the source archive.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Entries in the NOTICE file must ONLY relate to software
that is
> > > > > >> actually included.
> > > > > >> Nothing may be added to the NOTICE file that is not legally
> > > > > >> required
> > > > [1]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was unable to check if the contents of the source archive
> > > > > >> agrees with the source code control system - please supply
the
> > > > > >> tag(s) from which the source archive was created.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> > > > > >> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice-text
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On 18 February 2014 23:26, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> Please review and vote on the Cordova 3.4.0 release.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> You can find the sample release at
> > > > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~steven/
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Voting will go on for 24 hours.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -Steve
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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