OK, Waiting for the 1.8.1 tag on cordova-js then :P +1
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So, where are we with this? > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>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 <[email protected] > > > >>> >> 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 < > >>> >> > >> [email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > >>> 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" <[email protected]> > >>>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 > >>><[email protected]> > >>> >> 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" <[email protected]> > >>> 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 > >>><[email protected] > >>> > > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> +1 release 1.8.1 > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 6/11/12 2:15 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> > >>>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 > >>> > >
