incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Chicken and the Egg: Proposed process for Corodova JS releases
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:27:19 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message