Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of iclelland@google.com designates
 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: iclelland@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADVgkyNii_MmEPeAoJJ8o0mftpAHp9ToYtA+HuhiUA=aCUTXnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOBL_k5QCzvTLWJ36_kSMA4OWjyPQDDasvBYigEfdy8p6OoYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVgkyNii_MmEPeAoJJ8o0mftpAHp9ToYtA+HuhiUA=aCUTXnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:29:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAK_TSX+reGgyMh3g0muHdjcSNXFr10cTEKWTe6ePYo6_LHPkMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 4.0.x, efcedabe, Patch-Bombing and good faith
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0800520a1704fe414697

--089e013d0800520a1704fe414697
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

For the sake of the commit history, I would prefer to revert, either with a
push -f or a new branch (4.0.y?) rather than push a "negative commit" onto
the existing branch.

Topic branches would have worked well in this case, I'm sure. Having an
"api-sanity" branch and/or a "multi-webview" branch from the 4.0.x branch
that could have been discussed before being merged in.

Re: Testing -- I'm pretty sure that we've been testing everything against
mobilespec all along; I know that Andrew's changes have required multiple
major updates to CrosswalkView, which has been a pain, but plugins and apps
have continued to work untouched.

With pluggable-webview, we are defining a new interface, and it's going to
be hard; it's going to go through changes before it's releasable.
Thankfully, its not a public interface until it's released. The only people
who should be affected right now (hopefully) are those people working on
third-party webviews, which I think is mostly me, Andrew, and Joe. We
should have realized that these changes would have a major impact on Joe's
work with MozillaView, and definitely could have coordinated things better.
Let's revert if we have to, (but I'd like to hear Andrew's reasons for the
changes that were made first), and then figure out how to work together
without breaking each other's work.


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
> >
>

--089e013d0800520a1704fe414697--