Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9946902A for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95374 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2012 05:17:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95339 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2012 05:17:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95317 invoked by uid 99); 14 Apr 2012 05:17:45 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:17:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of shazron@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.175] (HELO mail-iy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.210.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:17:36 +0000 Received: by iaag37 with SMTP id g37so5243827iaa.6 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:17:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=d2k9RhgexN4YWQDz2yrCkCsEP/8keJZsbccDkzTweJY=; b=oTUVkxMRgsuWt3gNKX68vDEvOg9pJ3gHpJ1OdxyEnpaCdm/U/lHuehJ7gmwMdNwqMq VqiA6mKyggxoeKIJZeEx4jdzWJIVR4XX5XV9YRKA6QRLUMEuNnPWqDduQpJdAJRU9Mtq UaXLjYyglYdJv06ulf5Nme3uxZyLgS/1hSyTKQg+V9/t5FsRIzFT3vVS7Aq/Cdcra8Y0 A6sKN1nfGpsTlY3N/C1egiBItAcVjkdfBfzro8NApEp1jwJYMl3nG82p5MSvlQYGZTUP aSnFJqXBBwpPydcIFEQlZzJZiey5IFSFAJKarXy0jK6qRer9HDPgIxWShMQzkhliJYtH bNxg== Received: by 10.42.169.132 with SMTP id b4mr2741011icz.5.1334380636069; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:17:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.146.131 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:16:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4387361442080271166@unknownmsgid> From: Shazron Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:16:35 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Coho script To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org >> Even though I +1'ed above - I like the idea of each repo being >> "buildable" without any other dependencies, even though it's a dupe. I >> realize this is another step for maintainers adding the script in, but >> hopefully adhering to a release checklist will help somewhat. >> > > Jesse and Shaz, I don't see it as being a hardship that you'd need to do > build the JavaScript code then the platform specific code. However, if > folks are worried about introducing a dependency the way I'd solve it, at > least on Android, is to have the ant build script pull and build the latest > JavaScript code. That way you always get the latest JS code and you don't > have to check it into your platform specific repo. I'm not really talking about us core devs, but the many other devs that will need to pull our source. Right now it's just "make" for iOS, but to build the js requires node as well - no biggie, we just have to slot time for handling and doc'ing this which will eat up time to get other things done in 2 weeks (?) for 1.7.0. Ideally I want the Makefile in iOS to actually help with pulling down the node install, install it, and install jake as well if possible - so that it's seamless. > > >> One (tiny) possible problem with the release script auto grabbing the >> latest tagged js is, there is a possibility that it just might contain >> new changes that hasn't been tested which the maintainer has not >> signed off on (ie tested). But we might be able to mitigate this by >> always releasing a rc build that gets tested again, before the >> "official" release. >> >> > I don't see that as being a problem, rather I see it as an improvement. If > we are going with a common JS across all the platforms then each of the > platform specific cordova.js should be built with the same set of commits. > The way things are now where we build in check in the js to each platform > may/does result with the iOS version being 3 commits ahead of the > BlackBerry one, for example. That just smells wrong to me. Hmm I believe each repo builds off a tag (or should), so I don't see where you think for example the iOS version can be X commits ahead, they should be identical. I know its a "sync" problem among N maintainers which can be a nightmare. But the possibility I brought up is still real - you can get a version out there that is not tested/vouched for.