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 <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Fil, re-testing now. > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> 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" <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca> 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 <f...@adobe.com> 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" <g...@tinyhippos.com> 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 <agri...@chromium.org> > >>> >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 <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Gord is this a showstopper? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 8/31/12 11:58 AM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >So, what does this mean. Should all platforms hold? > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> > wrote: > >>> >>> >> Oh balls. Just tagged 2.1.0rc2 > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> On 8/31/12 11:35 AM, "Gord Tanner" <gtan...@gmail.com> 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 > >>> >>><agri...@chromium.org> > >>> >>> >>>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 > >>> >>><pmue...@gmail.com> > >>> >>> >>>>wrote: > >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>> >>><agri...@google.com> > >>> >>> >>>>>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 > >>> > >>> > > >
