OK, that's pretty damn dishonest. I did pull and see that it was retagged like you said it was yesterday. I think blaming me for using the old tag back before you retagged is a pretty crap thing to do.
Also, Why in the hell are we storing the version in CordovaWebView.java? Does it need to be there? I thought that we've gone past having to hardcode Android versions in Java files. On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > The extra hash on the end was the reason for the re-tag of cordova-js. Maybe > you forgot to "git pull" and still have your cordova-js at the previous tag? > > Coho's not involved in any of that. The code is in > cordova-js/build/packager.js > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> After I let Andrew do the tagging of RC1, I noticed something that >> looks broken by the fact that I can't reproduce this result without >> using coho, and I can't find in the source where coho messes with the >> build labels. >> >> Now, as well all know, the JS is generated by Grunt. Assuming that >> we're going to be building off the same branch for the JS, we should >> all be getting the same JS by doing this: >> >> git checkout 3.1.0-rc1 >> grunt >> >> That produces a JS file with this header: >> 3.1.0-rc1-0-g0d70465 >> >> However, when you look at the JS checked into Android, it's simply just >> this: >> 3.1.0-rc1 >> >> Now, they're the same, but when we remove the hash from the build, we >> have to believe that it's the same thing. What's worse, I can't see >> where in coho that we delete the hash from the build label. >> >> I know that this was cited as one of the things that I was doing wrong >> with the release process, but I have no idea why it's wrong to have >> the hash in the header of the JS, since this is what you get when >> manually generate the JS from the tag that is on the CordovaJS >> repository. I think that this process isn't transparent, and I can't >> find anywhere in the coho command that messes with this. >> >> Anyone know why one is correct, and one is wrong? This seems pretty >> subjective. >> >> Joe > >
