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 16:50:30 GMT
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