cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: 4.0.x, efcedabe, Patch-Bombing and good faith
Date Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:34:33 GMT
I'd consider 4.0 an in progress release branch. A topic might be
remove-get-plugin, for example.


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:

> May we keep these topics within existing email threads?  Some of these
> topics have been addressed elsewhere and the conversation is forking.
>
> RE: topic branches -- thats what 4.0.x is, no?  I guess as more people
> start to actually consume it, we should start to care more about compat.
>  We didn't care about making breaking changes in the first weeks, and now
> its the end of the world (okay I'm exaggerating here, just trying to
> counterbalance the original tone ;)
>
> Also, 4.0.x also doesn't exactly have a well defined set of things to test
> against, so we should discuss that tonight.  I think its hard to include
> other peoples demos which you don't know exist in that set..
>
> -Michal
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > 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 <bowserj@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> >
>

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