Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.187 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "callback-dev@incubator.apache.org" <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:25:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Chicken and the Egg: Proposed process for Corodova JS releases
Thread-Topic: Chicken and the Egg: Proposed process for Corodova JS releases
Thread-Index: Ac0XT2UHvgmyxj+tTPC+Fxl7HjAEAA==
Message-ID: <CBA9D6E0.3E2B%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBL_k5XY5KfAH8OViaVqM6Csvz-2kxnHVdCKae2=FhVPfQBtg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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:
>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>> Ahhh=A9 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
>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>