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 18:05:12 GMT
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