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 59BC2DF74 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69790 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2012 14:47:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 69762 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2012 14:47:11 -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 69753 invoked by uid 99); 18 Sep 2012 14:47:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:47:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FRT_ADOBE2,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of agrieve@google.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.47] (HELO mail-oa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.219.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:47:05 +0000 Received: by oagn9 with SMTP id n9so6236975oag.6 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-system-of-record; bh=6oc0FsX6ZUundLGY2mVkUlTERRRFWVFGbaUu97r4css=; b=IgG2jlNdhnsu+VAkPTr3jTZr013RGZOv2Yz8oxtlUqCNGD5kFQ4GjROOmCljxwvt9d +G0o98faG+ip8igiGq9x5XZAvvWrPNoGBL+gHCXup3kT/99ymej/WRMdtWLnW/ryTFlc dGf20OkiKBCQLgD3V9nZtzg35zTDIi4Fc4ezYzuk3Kmkp44tf1CMQkdVH0rtc9AS56J8 aXUMwG8gVezT3EEpnimQV1TG8Np4pFkaU4S8rnWCyZ4kMqRPLPlbfmvevgaFtH9iDgzh PAjTZXVTNSTeB1Dpeh5mEshG91eC4kcAgUqJ4ZsH8oFPUy/NxYubZQRjjy6eweYw9CUy oSOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=6oc0FsX6ZUundLGY2mVkUlTERRRFWVFGbaUu97r4css=; b=gpZVJNYNnyvilK8aBh6JQA2BHqzZikip2Xug5SK1Hze47+3pkN43KE5iFKUf9SnZjV FZz1KOLAuEh+p3ieomzK0es16BQhtxGo2+8eGwMuUOZ9VU1LiDY4eHva6DOGJ4XTTnWz vtGpNmXfyIXAZtqRUCr/XW/47lL+xVyMczngzmTkO0oj/DGJHURhaMVsmZi/6qqy+ejI 92w65NpRSnoQrOp6WkazAHBY49/A4f0/B3Y+Odq/H+ycgmto5J/tXlHZDDu56OEHX46q /7kXiy8zW+muRMg4+vsLjuE8I61Xd9Yc4PKtaLHno9UIjD2k9t7eB5OSpSqAEx2Lx0cC fd/A== Received: by 10.182.75.100 with SMTP id b4mr184464obw.12.1347979604114; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.75.100 with SMTP id b4mr184451obw.12.1347979603974; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:46:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: agrieve@google.com Received: by 10.182.124.101 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Grieve Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:46:23 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FXKmbnFbZTOwyHQvtRejeqgc8QY Message-ID: Subject: Re: Circular require()s To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93996ed7599ad04c9faf555 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSL/bl8xaGAQTV4MK8T4DNxIrWpfPGYcJDleqx2Gk/PBks22eKIGVluyLxQ5dFzbjw+38kKGMlNehs0gFmlDa8gnZoZ6GmTO9Wv7gTI9lYMD2rGBwJZZTbSD4tk03jmtYiSFU6lLbc+9t9vnVtrxbuNuxbbFE83fBUKniE9q6fukp14JPPJK1rROJaE71sn2xYvddv948xC38WxdhKFEvfFV1lvg== --14dae93996ed7599ad04c9faf555 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Now that 2.1 is off, I've reverted the revert, so the circular check is back. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Shazron wrote: > Thanks Fil, re-testing now. > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > > I've reverted the change and re-tagged JS. > > > > I would HIGHLY recommend rebuilding the JS and re-testing everything on > > all platforms just in case. > > > > On 8/31/12 1:10 PM, "Michael Brooks" wrote: > > > >>If the circular dependency issue is isolated to one or more commits, then > >>you can revert those commits (basically an inverted cherry-pick - undoing > >>the particular commit). > >> > >>On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > >> > >>> Can we cherry-pick the circular require commit out and run through the > >>> motions? There are a lot of good commits that we should include ethat > >>> follow it. Any volunteers? > >>> > >>> On 8/31/12 12:59 PM, "Gord Tanner" wrote: > >>> > >>> >Know what > >>> > > >>> >+1 to rolling it back. > >>> > > >>> >Way to many things to test at this point to ensure we don't miss > >>>anything. > >>> > > >>> >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>> >wrote: > >>> >> These are usually easy to fix by moving one of the require()s one > >>> >>nesting > >>> >> deeper. > >>> >> > >>> >> That said, it might be worth just rolling the CL back for now and > >>>then > >>> >> rolling it forward after the tagging. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Gord is this a showstopper? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 8/31/12 11:58 AM, "Shazron" wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >So, what does this mean. Should all platforms hold? > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Filip Maj > wrote: > >>> >>> >> Oh balls. Just tagged 2.1.0rc2 > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> On 8/31/12 11:35 AM, "Gord Tanner" wrote: > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >>>This is currently breaking tizen and File API's > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>>Should we remove this and push to 2.2 to give people time to > >>>clean > >>> >>>this > >>> >>> >>>up? > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>>wrote: > >>> >>> >>>> Done and done. > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cordova-js.git;a=co > >>> >>> >>>>mm > >>> >>> >>>>it;h=188232f42e60745c961363638560ad3c41b6590c > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Patrick Mueller > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>>>wrote: > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>>>>wrote: > >>> >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> >>>>> > ... > >>> >>> >>>>> > I think these restrictions are too hard to get right, and > >>>that > >>> >>>we > >>> >>> >>>>>should > >>> >>> >>>>> > just make require cycles an error. Objections? > >>> >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> >>>>> +1, I think this should be containable for us. > >>> >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> >>>>> -- > >>> >>> >>>>> Patrick Mueller > >>> >>> >>>>> http://muellerware.org > >>> >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >-- > >>> >Gord Tanner > >>> >Senior Developer / Code Poet > >>> >tinyHippos Inc. > >>> >@tinyhippos > >>> > >>> > > > --14dae93996ed7599ad04c9faf555--