incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Chicken and the Egg: Proposed process for Corodova JS releases
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:42:09 GMT
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