incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <>
Subject [DISCUSS] Apache Cordova 1.9.0 release vote
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:57:39 GMT

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Steven Gill <> wrote:
> Jukka has said that we should ship the src as the official apache release.
> I thought I would ask what everyone hear thinks.

Great work! Here's a few process/formatting suggestions (nitpicking
really, but it's a good idea to be consistent with the way other
Apache projects operate):

* It's customary for formal votes like one for a release to use the
[VOTE] tag on the subject line.
* It's also a good idea to tie the vote thread to the exact bits being
voted on by including the MD5 or SHA1 checksum of the release archive
like I did in my response.
* Mentioning the vote duration (72 hours is typical) is also a good idea.

See for a good recent
example from the Jackrabbit mailing list.

> Please discuss and vote if we should make this our official release. I can
> post it to if the vote passes.

While this release looks all right and I'm happy for all the effort
that went into the coho script to make this happen, I have a longer
term concern about the fact that a fairly complicated script is needed
for producing a release and the fact that it's this script instead of
something inside the source release archive that's used to produce the
-bin and doc archives. The trouble here is that the further away the
contents of the released source archive is from what committers
themselves are working on, the more likely it is to not receive as
much testing and validation as it should and to eventually fall into a
state of disrepair.

Instead of using a script to produce the source archive, why don't we
simply "git archive" the relevant tags of each cordova repository,
sign and checksum them, and release the results?

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Simon MacDonald
<> wrote:
> Do we need to put the source in for incubator-cordova-js? Obviously, each
> sub repo has their own platform specific version of the .js checked in.

We should, though this is a bit blurry area. The source release should
really consist of the "source materials needed to make changes to the
software" [1]. One can debate whether the platform-specific .js files
fall into that category, but a far better alternative is to simply
include all the sources that you're directly working on when making
changes to Cordova.

More generally, I think it's a sign of a build/dependency problem that
we need to have the generated platform .js files stored in version
control in the first place.

> Problems with the for Android:
> 1) guides/Cordova Upgrade is not up to date.
> 2) is not up to date.
> 3) framework/assets/js has a file but
> framework/assets/www is missing the cordova-1.9.0.js file.

These sound like good reasons to cancel the current release vote and
re-cut the release candidate as 1.9.1 (or once the issues
have been fixed. Did you already file Jira issues for these?



Jukka Zitting

View raw message