cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 4.0.x, efcedabe, Patch-Bombing and good faith
Date Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:56:40 GMT
On Jul 15, 2014 5:43 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I finally managed to reproduce the setup that Andrew finally has.  The
> > multiple repositories thing is super frustrating, and I am not
> > convinced that these changes help the project, since none of them were
> > communicated.  I still don't understand why these had to happen on the
> > 4.0.x branch and not on a topic branch on GitHub.
> >
>
> The changelog on github is here:
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commits/4.0.x
>
> I think the commit messages are pretty good and communicate what the
> commits contain fairly well. Of course, mine is a very biased opinion
here.
>

They don't. There aren't issues attached. These are often one line.  Why
can't we use JIRA for this?

> Here's the goals I've had with the changes I've made recently:
> 1. Make it possible to have multiple webviews in an app with separate
> configs

Cool. Is there an issue in JIRA?

> 2. Delete @Deprecated things so as to not need a 5.0.x to do so

Cool, is this tracked anywhere else?

> 3. Refactor copy & pasted code between xwalkview & androidwebview

Again, is this in JIRA?

> 4. Shrink the API surface of CordovaWebView (less surface == more
> maintainable)
>

This isn't cool. This should have been discussed more.  What will this
break?

> I've also added the bridgeSecret thing (to master) for making the bridge
> more secure. This I emailed about & would still like it if someone else
> could audit it.
>

On dev or private?  Should it be discussed here?

>
>
>
> > Even though everything works now, I still think we have a major
> > problem with patch bombing and a lack of communication.  The solution
> > being proposed was "revert everything", and if I did do that today, I
> > would have reverted code just because it was patchbombed in. Perhaps
> > we should revert code that's patchbombed?  I honestly would like to be
> > able to go out of 4G coverage without everything being rewritten "just
> > because".  Can we agree to actually collaborate instead of trying to
> > win the race for most commits, especially since we know that when
> > Simon comes back, he's going to win it anyway.
>
>
> > I'm not asking that everything be discussed before being committed,
> > but if there are tons of commits (more than 20), it should be on its
> > own branch before it gets pushed and discussed.
> >
>
> So long as commit messages are good, and changes are reasonable & don't
> break things, then why extend the odds of merge conflicts?
>

Because Community > Code, and your opinion about commit messages is
subjective.  If you used JIRA, I could have caught up instead of a one-line
commit.

> Many changes required changes to the xwalk engine plugin as well, and I
> think it would have been more work than its worth to have created multiple
> dependent topic branches on multiple repos that would have a bunch of
merge
> conflicts to deal with, all to maintain the state of a pretty experimental
> branch.
>

JIRA is where this should have been done.  I don't just create issues just
for the sake of creating them.  If I got a JIRA issue "I might have broke
things, go check", I would go check.

> If you subscribe to changelog emails, you get an email for each one. I
> actually do read these, and I'd encourage others to as well. If there was
a
> change I thought was reasonable, but you disagree, then let's discuss it.
I
> think you'll find that at least most of the changes are pretty reasonable.
>

Why can't we use JIRA to track issues and changes like this?  I can read a
changelog on gitweb just as easily as on my Gmail.

>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > More communication is always better -- I feel that might be the
> > > missing piece here.
> > >
> > > Let's try to move on from this and discuss this in the call to solve
> > > this situation:
> > > 1. Identify what's broken and fix that, with verifying tests
> > > 2. Revert for now so others can continue, while trying to fix what's
> > > broken in the new patch (in a branch for merging later)
> > > 3. Another option(?)
> > >
> > > I would err on the side of more communication over less (Apache
> > > "Community over Code" etc). A massive patch integration without
> > > discussion imo is not pro-community.
> > >
> > > I may have missed it (apologies if I did) but the series of patches
> > > started July 3, 2014 and I did not see any discussion of it in dev@
> > > prior to that.
> > >
> > > Shaz
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> Let's discuss tonight, but it is actually pretty easy to revert
things
> > >> without --force. "git revert" can do it, or "git checkout HASH . &&
git
> > >> commit --all -a"
> > >>
> > >> Also - what's broken? Just did a test compile with 4.0.x &
> > >>
> >
https://github.com/clelland/cordova-crosswalk-engine#plugin_with_arm_binary
> > >> and it worked fine.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM, 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