On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Woah - I'm not blaming here, I don't actually even know for sure what's going on. I just suggested that the symptoms you describe (about grunt producing a header with a commit hash) is the reason I re-tagged the JS (which I did yesterday), so it is likely explained by not pulling since then. Not accusing you of anything here, just trying to help. > > 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. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4725 - We have always had the version hardcoded in Java. It was broken in 3.0 though by the Device plugin being moved into a plugin. I put it in CordovaWebView.java so that we can fix the Device plugin. > > 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 > > > > >
