incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: release 1.8.1
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:52:24 GMT
+1 tag 1.8.1

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> I'll reiterate, my vote is to just tag 1.8.1. In the other thread we did a
> full circle on possible release types :)
>
> On 6/12/12 10:42 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Not really sure where we are with this. Looks like there is friction
>>with updating *all* platforms to tag 1.8.1 (like the way we did
>>before). I'd say tag cordova-js 1.8.1 to the same tag as 1.8.0. Then
>>iOS updates and tags to 1.8.1. Source is fine - but binary
>>distribution, dunno. The reason cordova-js has to be tagged 1.8.1 is
>>because the cordova-js in a new project will be called
>>cordova-1.8.1.js, and if it is not tagged, it will be confusing.
>>
>>On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, where are we with this?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The benefit of version numbers to track bugs which is pretty useful I
>>>> think! =) I've just assumed we'd want to synchronize the cordova-js
>>>> version number to the native code as a rule of thumb for sanity.
>>>>
>>>> Is that assumption incorrect?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I agree with Anis, if I we are going through your proposal Brian,
>>>>there
>>>> is
>>>> > little to no benefit over updating everything.
>>>> >
>>>> > In my estimation, the iOS fix will not require an update to
>>>>cordova-js,
>>>> > which may be our line in the sand. If cordova-js need to be rebuilt
>>>>to
>>>> > address an issue, then we will probably always have the full cascade
>>>>of
>>>> > rebuilds+retags+hoopla.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Is cordova-js updated in this particular case ? Because if it is,
>>>>the
>>>> >> platforms that use it can just be tagged 1.8.1 and we ship
>>>> >> phonegap-1.8.1.zip (just simpler).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Well, here's the proposal again.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 1. We ship a package and it is titled phonegap-1.8.x.zip
>>>> >> > 2. Inside that package we have files. Those files are explicitly
>>>> >> > *-1.8.*.* (cordova-js would need a tag for 1.8.1 for projects
>>>>that use
>>>> >> > it..)
>>>> >> > 3. We update the download with PATCH updates as they come on
a
>>>> >> > platform by platform basis (as needed).
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > This could get messy given the shared dependency of cordova-js.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > > I only added the patch level on the assumption that it
might
>>>>happen
>>>> >> again
>>>> >> > > before 1.9.
>>>> >> > > But I can live without it.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >> I'd like to propose we take jesses suggestion but
with the
>>>>tweak
>>>> that
>>>> >> > >> we do not add a new patch level. The downstream distribution
>>>>would
>>>> >> > >> just read:
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> phonegap-1.8.x.zip
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> wherein the ios distrib would be based on 1.8.1 and
all others
>>>> based
>>>> >> on
>>>> >> > >> 1.8.0
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> I feel this is maintainable and easiest on implementors
for
>>>> platforms
>>>> >> > >> that do not need to rock a patch tag. Thoughts?
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> > Android will not be merging 1.8.1 back into master,
since it
>>>> will be
>>>> >> > >> based
>>>> >> > >> > on 1.8.0 pre-CordovaWebView.
>>>> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michael Brooks
<
>>>> >> > >> michael@michaelbrooks.ca>wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > Hmm.. Can we have multiple tags in git
pointing to the
>>>>same
>>>> >> commit?
>>>> >> > >> This
>>>> >> > >> >> > way we COULD tag all platforms, but
non-ios platforms'
>>>>1.8.1
>>>> just
>>>> >> > >> points
>>>> >> > >> >> > to the same commit as 1.8.0.
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> Yes, a tag is just a reference to a SHA.
However, we still
>>>>need
>>>> to
>>>> >> > >> update
>>>> >> > >> >> the VERSION file for each platform.
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> All platforms but iOS should be able to branch
off 1.8.0,
>>>>update
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > >> code,
>>>> >> > >> >> and merge it back:
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git checkout -b 1.8.0 new-release`
>>>> >> > >> >> - update the version to 1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git commit -am "Version 1.8.1"
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git tag 1.8.1`
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git checkout master`
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git merge new-release`
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git branch -d new-release`
>>>> >> > >> >> - `git push origin`
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> Am I missing something?
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Filip Maj
<fil@adobe.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > Hmm.. Can we have multiple tags in git
pointing to the
>>>>same
>>>> >> commit?
>>>> >> > >> This
>>>> >> > >> >> > way we COULD tag all platforms, but
non-ios platforms'
>>>>1.8.1
>>>> just
>>>> >> > >> points
>>>> >> > >> >> > to the same commit as 1.8.0.
>>>> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > On 6/11/12 2:41 PM, "Jesse" <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >I still think we should serve the
new updated+package
>>>> >> > distribution,
>>>> >> > >> just
>>>> >> > >> >> > >not modify platforms that do not
have changes.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >Call it a hotfix ...
>>>> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM,
Filip Maj
>>>><fil@adobe.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> The thing is that the downstream
distribution of
>>>>cordova
>>>> >> > (phonegap)
>>>> >> > >> >> gets
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> *a lot* of exposure/downloads
via a single archive
>>>> containing
>>>> >> > all
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>platform
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> implementations.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> Tagging a 1.8.1 or 1.8.0.1
on a single platform and
>>>> blogging
>>>> >> > about
>>>> >> > >> it
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> would probably work for the
(small) user base that is
>>>> involved
>>>> >> > on
>>>> >> > >> the
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> issue tracker+mailing list,
and is comfortable with
>>>>git,
>>>> etc.
>>>> >> > >> However
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>for
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> the vast majority of users
these are all "hoops" they
>>>>have
>>>> to
>>>> >> go
>>>> >> > >> >> through
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> and, in light of a latest point
release crashing for
>>>>them
>>>> >> > already,
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> probably would just add to
their frustration.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> If we want to be up front and
honest about the issue
>>>>and
>>>> how
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> > fix
>>>> >> > >> >> it,
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>as
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> well as provide as simple a
solution to people who may
>>>>have
>>>> >> > fallen
>>>> >> > >> >> into
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> the issue in the first place,
I am of the opinion we
>>>>should
>>>> >> tag
>>>> >> > >> 1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> across the board, blog about
it _AND_ host up another
>>>>dist.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> Would love to hear what non-Adobe
folks have to say
>>>>about
>>>> >> this.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> On 6/11/12 2:30 PM, "Jesse"
<purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >Before I tip my hand on
a vote ...
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >Is there any chance of
a middle ground here?
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >Updating all platforms
to 1.8.1 for the benefit of one
>>>> >> platform
>>>> >> > >> seems
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>like
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >a lot of overhead to address
a change in one.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >Could we adopt packaging
a 1.8.0.1.zip which would
>>>>include
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > >> >> updated
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>iOS
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >code, and iOS code tags,
but no changes to the other
>>>> >> > platforms? or
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >something similar?
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >Of course this would require
adding a little
>>>> documentation to
>>>> >> > the
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>release,
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >to say what was addressed,
and what platforms were
>>>> changed,
>>>> >> but
>>>> >> > >> still
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >considerably easier than
the tag->domino effect we
>>>>have
>>>> now.
>>>> >> > IMO
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at
2:18 PM, Filip Maj
>>>><fil@adobe.com
>>>> >
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> +1 release 1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 6/11/12 2:15 PM,
"Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >So we have a fairly
big issue in iOS 1.8 wherein a
>>>> >> PhoneGap
>>>> >> > >> app is
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >crashing if the
user swipes down the notification
>>>> centre
>>>> >> > while
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>in-app.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The question is
whether this is a bug big enough to
>>>> cut an
>>>> >> > >> 1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >official release
for all platforms or if pointing
>>>> users to
>>>> >> > the
>>>> >> > >> >> minor
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >tag is enough.
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >[+1] release 1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >[ -1] do not release
1.8.1
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >I think a tag
should suffice but if implementors
>>>>have
>>>> no
>>>> >> > >> trouble
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >tagging a release
then we might as well save
>>>>Shaz/Becky
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> >email/twitter
complaint!
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >--
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >@purplecabbage
>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >risingj.com
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >> > >> >> > >--
>>>> >> > >> >> > >@purplecabbage
>>>> >> > >> >> > >risingj.com
>>>> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> > >>
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > --
>>>> >> > > @purplecabbage
>>>> >> > > risingj.com
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > @purplecabbage
>>>> > risingj.com
>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message