incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Chicken and the Egg: Proposed process for Corodova JS releases
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:30:20 GMT
+1 ---will add an issue to the tracker to automate this part

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Simon MacDonald
<simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had to retag Android to 1.6.0. The .js file that Joe added into repo did
> not have the fix for FileWriter.seek().
>
> We really need to make this step part of the packaging of the release. If
> we had a script that builds all the deliverables and then we go off and
> test them would be better than all of us doing our ad hoc builds.
>
> Simon Mac Donald
> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Retagged Android 1.6.0
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Docs and JS (re)tagged 1.6.0
>> >
>> > On 4/10/12 12:37 PM, "Filip Maj" <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Simon fixed a File API seek() issue and dropped it into cordova-js (and
>> > >also a test into mobile spec) today.
>> > >
>> > >We've had varying #s of tests passing on Androids before, we generally
>> had
>> > >more tests failing on Android 2.x. Don't think this is too out of line.
>> > >
>> > >DirectoryEntry timing out is a bad test to be failing on. That certainly
>> > >should be looked into. If it's an easy fix then let's get that in. Gord
>> > >and I tested DirectoryEntry on BB7 earlier today and it was fine.
>> > >DirectoryEntry was also passing fine on my Android 4.0.2.
>> > >
>> > >Otherwise, let's tag-n-bag!!!1 Note the issues for 1.7 and move on!
>> > >
>> > >On 4/10/12 12:30 PM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>I don't care about contacts right now, because those are at least
>> failing
>> > >>consistency across the four devices I'm testing.  What I do care about
>> is
>> > >>the fact that we're getting inconsistent tests across multiple Android
>> > >>devices.
>> > >>
>> > >>Samsung Galaxy S II (2.3.4): 9 Failures
>> > >>Galaxy Nexus (4.0.2): 9 Failures
>> > >>Motorola RAZR (2.3.5): 17 Failures
>> > >>Samsung Nexus S (2.3.6): 23 Failures
>> > >>
>> > >>All these devices were factory reset before we started testing them,
>> and
>> > >>DirectoryEntry and GeoLocation tests are timing out.  I'm OK with
>> tagging
>> > >>this, but this is something that needs to be looked into, and I'm
>> > >>wondering
>> > >>if this is an issue with other platforms as well.
>> > >>
>> > >>Also, I believe Simon mentioned that there was something he fixed in
>> the
>> > >>JS
>> > >>earlier.
>> > >>
>> > >>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> It looks like the first contacts.save test fails because the contact
>> > >>> returned in the save success callback is the wrong one.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Looks like a native Android issue and not a JS issue.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> IMO JS and Docs can be tagged.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 4/10/12 11:55 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> >OK, I'm getting 9 failures on the Samsung Galaxy S II.  Testing
>> > >>>appears to
>> > >>> >be completely inconsistent.  I'm going to factory reset the
Galaxy
>> > >>>Nexus
>> > >>> >and see if I get the same results.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
>> > >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >> I'm getting the same thing on Gingerbread.  The thing
is that on
>> my
>> > >>> >>Galaxy
>> > >>> >> Nexus running 4.0.2, I'm only getting 13 failures.
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> Looks like ICS is having issues with saving a contact,
but only a
>> > >>> >>>couple
>> > >>> >>> of the tests are failing in that. The round trip (heavy)
test
>> that
>> > >>> >>>saves,
>> > >>> >>> searches, removes, then searches again passes.. So..
Not sure.
>> > >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>> On 4/10/12 11:36 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >I'm still testing Android 2.3.6, because that's
what most people
>> > >>> >>>have.  I
>> > >>> >>> >do think that 21 tests is rather high for us to
release, IMO.
>>  Why
>> > >>> >>>did it
>> > >>> >>> >jump up like that?
>> > >>> >>> >
>> > >>> >>> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >
>> > >>> >>> >> All manual tests pass with latest js + framework
commit on
>> > >>>Android.
>> > >>> >>>21
>> > >>> >>> >> failed Qunit tests. 4.0.2 Galaxy Nexus.
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> From what I can tell Shaz says iOS is good
to go, Jesse says
>> the
>> > >>> >>>same
>> > >>> >>> >>for
>> > >>> >>> >> WP7. I know BB and Android are good.
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> I'm going to tag the JS and update the docs
with a 1.6.0
>> > >>>directory,
>> > >>> >>> then
>> > >>> >>> >> tag the docs.
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> On 4/10/12 11:23 AM, "Filip Maj" <fil@adobe.com>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >We have not committed anything new in
cordova-js, we are just
>> > >>> >>>picking
>> > >>> >>> a
>> > >>> >>> >> >new commit to tag to 1.6.0, so assuming
all of us have been
>> > >>>working
>> > >>> >>> >>with
>> > >>> >>> >> >the cordova-js master in our platforms,
we are not
>> introducing
>> > >>> >>> anything
>> > >>> >>> >> >new.
>> > >>> >>> >> >
>> > >>> >>> >> >Every time any cordova developer touches
the common code in
>> > >>> >>>cordova-js
>> > >>> >>> >> >that dev should be testing across all
platforms. We have to
>> > >>>stop
>> > >>> >>> >>working
>> > >>> >>> >> >in our little native silos; that is not
in the spirit of this
>> > >>> >>>project.
>> > >>> >>> >>We
>> > >>> >>> >> >write a cross-platform tool, any of us
need to be comfortable
>> > >>> >>>testing
>> > >>> >>> >>on
>> > >>> >>> >> >all supported platforms.
>> > >>> >>> >> >
>> > >>> >>> >> >On 4/10/12 11:05 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >
>> > >>> >>> >> >>Sounds good. But if the changes somehow
break Android, what
>> > >>> >>>happens?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM,
Jesse MacFadyen
>> > >>> >>> >> >><purplecabbage@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> None.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> Is none the new +1?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> Cheers,
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>  Jesse
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone5
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> On 2012-04-10, at 11:00 AM,
Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
>> > >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> > None
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> > 2012/4/10 Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >> I was gonna tag it
1.6.0.. Objections?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >> On 4/10/12 10:50 AM,
"Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com>
>> > >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Are you going to
tag it 1.6.0? or 1.6.0rc3?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 10,
2012 at 10:50 AM, Filip Maj
>> > >>><fil@adobe.com>
>> > >>> >>> >>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> .... Already
notes in docs. Durrr.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> Tag?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> On 4/10/12
10:48 AM, "Filip Maj" <fil@adobe.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> AhhhŠ
actually Compass is not available in
>> BlackBerry
>> > >>> >>>before
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>7.0.. So
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> that
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> would explain
why it's not working on 6.0 :)
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> I'm going
to file an issue for that in JIRA.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> I'm going
to update the docs to note this, and then,
>> > >>>we
>> > >>> >>> >>should be
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> good
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> tag, ya?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> On 4/10/12
10:44 AM, "Filip Maj" <fil@adobe.com>
>> > >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> 37
failing tests on a Torch running 6.0. The accel
>> > >>> >>>callback
>> > >>> >>> >>test
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> failed
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> but
when I run the manual tests for accel they all
>> > >>>check
>> > >>> >>> >>out, so
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> 37
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> failing
tests might be a little blown up.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> The
file API looks fine, Drew.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> Looks
to me like Compass may be a little f'ed. The
>> > >>>manual
>> > >>> >>> >>tests
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>for
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> Compass
keep returning "[object object]" so there
>> > >>>seems
>> > >>> >>>to
>> > >>> >>> >>be a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> little
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> mistake
in there somewhere. Gord and I are looking
>> > >>>into
>> > >>> >>> that.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> If
we resolve the compass issue IMO we're good to
>> > >>>tag. We
>> > >>> >>> >>pass
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>on
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> both a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> 9900
(runs 7.0) and a Torch (runs 6.0).
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> On
4/10/12 10:31 AM, "Filip Maj" <fil@adobe.com>
>> > >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
No worries Jesse.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
I got my hands on an OS6 device so I'll try to
>> > >>> >>>reproduce +
>> > >>> >>> >>fix
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>what
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
you're
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
seeing, Drew.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
On 4/10/12 10:04 AM, "Jesse MacFadyen"
>> > >>> >>> >> >>><purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
I was the over anxious js 1.6 tagger, in my rush
>> to
>> > >>> >>>have a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>long
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
weekend.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
Sorry all.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
Cheers,
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
 Jesse
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
Sent from my iPhone5
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
On 2012-04-10, at 9:50 AM, Joe Bowser
>> > >>> >>><bowserj@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
I deleted the 1.6.0 tag from Android.  I'll put
>> it
>> > >>> >>>back
>> > >>> >>> >>when
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>we
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> get
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
this
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
sorted out!
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Drew Walters <
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> deedubbu@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
I'm still testing on other versions of BB.
>> > >>>Seeing
>> > >>> >>>some
>> > >>> >>> >>odd
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> behavior
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
all of a sudden in File API on OS 6.  Not sure
>> if
>> > >>>it
>> > >>> >>>is
>> > >>> >>> >>my
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>test
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> app
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
or
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
real bug.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Brian LeRoux
>> > >>> >>> >><b@brian.io>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
+1
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, Filip Maj wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
OK so I pulled the latest master from
>> > >>>cordova-js
>> > >>> >>>and
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> integrated
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
with
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
latest master for blackberry-webworks.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tested on the 9900, looks good. 18 tests
>> > >>>failing.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
Tag it - ship it. Let's iron out the rest in
>> > >>>1.7.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/10/12 8:59 AM, "Filip Maj" <
>> fil@adobe.com
>> > >
>> > >>> >>> wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agree with leaving the RC tags alone. Just
>> > >>>have to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> remove/retag
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.6.0
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
IMO
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/10/12 8:54 AM, "Shazron"
>> > >>><shazron@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >>wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let's wait until BB is done and do a tag
>> > >>>reset
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>discussion?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> with
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
steps
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
take
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.6.0rc1 should still be there though I
>> think
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Filip Maj
>> > >>> >>> >> >>><fil@adobe.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm in the process of testing the latest
>> BB
>> > >>> >>>code so
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>I'll
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> let
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
guys
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
know
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
soon how we're looking there.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is that the last thing need before we're
>> all
>> > >>> >>>good
>> > >>> >>> to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>tag
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> this
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
release?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/10/12 8:30 AM, "Simon MacDonald"
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<simon.macdonald@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think we should delete all the 1.6.0
>> > >>>tags. We
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>haven't
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
released
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
any
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
build artifacts from 1.6.0 so there
>> > >>>shouldn't
>> > >>> >>>be a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>problem
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
with
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
that.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I agree with Fil's steps.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simon Mac Donald
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Filip
>> Maj
>> > >>><
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> fil@adobe.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I like the general process Joe lays out.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not sure how vendoring-in a tagged
>> > >>> >>>cordova.js
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>file is
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
error
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
prone
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
though, Bryce. Is it just the manual
>> > >>>process
>> > >>> >>>of
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>checking
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> out
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
tag in
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cordova-js, building, and copying the
>> file
>> > >>> >>>over
>> > >>> >>> to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
platform
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
implementation? If this is the concern
>> > >>>then
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>certainly,
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
release
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
tool
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
should be set up to do that
>> automatically.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For some reason 1.6.0 tag in cordova-js
>> > >>>was
>> > >>> >>>added
>> > >>> >>> >>4
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>days
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> ago,
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.6.0rc2
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
was added ~ 1 day ago. Not sure what
>> > >>>happened
>> > >>> >>> >>there.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In light of the tags not being ordered
>> > >>> >>>properly
>> > >>> >>> >>and
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> file
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
seek
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
bug
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
creeping in, I propose, just for the
>> 1.6.0
>> > >>> >>> >>release,
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>that
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> we:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) Delete the old 1.6.0 tag in
>> cordova-js.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) Retag cordova-js 1.6.0 to the latest
>> > >>>commit
>> > >>> >>> >>(that
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> includes
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
file
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
seek bug fix) - now our tags are at
>> least
>> > >>>in
>> > >>> >>>the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>right
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> order
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) rebuild, reintegrate into platforms
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4) unfortunately, retag the platform
>> > >>> >>> >>implementations
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> 1.6.0
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If retagging is too unholy then f it, I
>> > >>>say we
>> > >>> >>> tag
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> everything
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
1.6.1.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 4/10/12 7:19 AM, "Bryce Curtis"
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> <curtis.bryce@gmail.com>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As Joe eluded to, checking cordova-js
>> > >>>into
>> > >>> >>>the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>various
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
platform
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
repositories holds up the release.  It
>> is
>> > >>> >>>also
>> > >>> >>> >>error
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> prone -
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
to
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mention pushing to each repository
>> every
>> > >>>time
>> > >>> >>> >>there
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>is a
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
change
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
takes
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a lot of time & can get out of of sync.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any thoughts on having the release
>> build
>> > >>> >>>script
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>handle
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> this?
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
far
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
as during normal development and
>> testing,
>> > >>>we
>> > >>> >>>are
>> > >>> >>> >>all
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
building
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cordova.js anyway, and keep current in
>> > >>>our
>> > >>> >>>own
>> > >>> >>> >>ways.
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Simon
>> > >>> >>>MacDonald
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just fixed what seems to be a zero
>> day
>> > >>> >>>bug in
>> > >>> >>> >>our
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
implementation
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FileWriter. If possible it would be
>> good
>> > >>>to
>> > >>> >>>get
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>this
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> bug
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
fix
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
into
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
all
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
platform
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >> >>>
>> > >>> >>> >> >
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>> >>
>> > >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>>
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message