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 bowserj@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEeF2TdxKxoSUe6zc+RbvFPYYPwkraY=hxviH2NK7-QmPKM11Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOBL_k5QCzvTLWJ36_kSMA4OWjyPQDDasvBYigEfdy8p6OoYyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADVgkyNii_MmEPeAoJJ8o0mftpAHp9ToYtA+HuhiUA=aCUTXnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEeF2TdxKxoSUe6zc+RbvFPYYPwkraY=hxviH2NK7-QmPKM11Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:43:03 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOBL_k6QQhEGW3P5JsOPiHwOLC_5SEjfh=0tqQRTWrSVaYvSsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 4.0.x, efcedabe, Patch-Bombing and good faith
From: Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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?

What's the topic?  4.0.x is a broad topic.  If we look at my workflow
for pluggable_webview, it was as follows:

1. Personal topic thread:
https://github.com/infil00p/cordova-android/tree/pluggable_webview
2. Sent an e-mail asking if it was cool to add to ASF repos
3. After working on that and other issues, create a separate 4.0.x for
various topic branches to be added.
4. Sent e-mail asking about rebasing to 4.0.x, get rough consensus.

This process started months ago, back when we first started working on
pluggable webview.  Once we actually merge things in a potential
release branch, we should try to not break it unless we have a good
reason to not break it.  This shouldn't be broken on a single person's
whim.

> 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 ;)
>

The problem is that this isn't the only part of the project that gets
patch bombed.  There's also the fact that we managed to actually get a
feature working and everyone mostly agreeing how it was supposed to
work, which is a really hard thing.  You can try and downplay this,
but if we're constantly getting into revert wars, we can't do anything
else.  Time I could spend on prototyping things and on our JIRA
issues, which are constantly increasing, is now time I'm spending
reviewing 30+ commits trying to find what broke things, and writing
e-mails about them.

> 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..

4.0.x has one main feature, which is pluggable webviews.  It has other
things, like the UriHelper logic that was created to fix how intents
are managed and deprecations, but we should at least make sure we
don't break the one feature that we agreed upon.  Right now there's
classes that are missing that make this webview not work:
https://github.com/clelland/cordova-crosswalk-engine/tree/plugin_with_arm_binary.