cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian>
Subject Re: 4.0.x, efcedabe, Patch-Bombing and good faith
Date Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:48:50 GMT
1. patch bombing is never ok
2. topic branches people: its not hard
3. testing: this is why you do it

+1 revert. back and forth justifications have been going on for weeks,
joe's work is totally borked and blocked which is unfair.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Joe Bowser <> wrote:

> Due to the recent changes, I propose that we revert everything back to
> a prior commit on this branch.  Given that we use the interfaces to
> define the API for the ThirdParty WebViews used by Crosswalk and
> others, the irony of reverting is should be clear.  The fact is that
> we can't have people dumping hundreds of commits that totally destroy
> months of work that we've done, including all the consensus-building
> that was done.  This totally undermines the feeling that everyone is
> contributing in good faith.
> Honestly, if I even remotely tried to do the same thing, I know that
> many people on this project would have major objections to this, so I
> don't know why people are being silent about this now.  We can't have
> hundreds of commits just dumped into any branch of the ASF repos,
> since we have no easy way to do a revert of this.  We have no --force,
> and I'm probably going to have to fork and delete the 4.0.x branch.
> I'm going to do this after the conference call, but I'm extremely
> upset about the recent changes.
> We can't just say "shit will be broken anyway" and use it as an excuse
> to break other people's work.  I honestly don't know what to say about
> this at this point, since we've never had to do something like this
> before.  I'm extremely frustrated at the fact that I've been ignored
> every time I've raised concerns on this list and that some of us are
> held to higher standards than others.
> I really hope we can talk about this on the call, because this is
> beyond unacceptable.  I'm not sure what was supposed to be
> accomplished, and why talking about features is some sort of unknown
> barrier that we're trying to avoid.  At this point, there's no way we
> could even remotely vote on a major release.
> How can we work past this so that we can actually work on this project
> again?
> Joe

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