The apache mirrors haven't picked up 3.1.0 zip yet. Making it a little harder to get out on our site.
Feel free to RT the release tweet. https://twitter.com/apachecordova/status/385523954724507648 On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Steven Gill <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good. Also updating download links to point to 3.1.0 instead of > 3.0.0 > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Blog post is live. >> http://cordova.apache.org/blog/releases/2013/10/02/cordova-31.html >> >> Final steps: >> Tweet the post (steve) >> Update DOAP file with .zip release (steve) >> Update the docs.cordova.io redirect (Michael B) >> Mark as released in JIRA ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/CB/versions >> ) >> (steve) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Steven Gill <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Release is being uploaded as I type this email. >> > >> > Andrew, feel free to post the blog + update the site to say 3.1.0! >> > >> > Woot! >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I don't think Apache is breaking Git, it's just git. This has happened >> > > before, where I commented on the ML about a tag that had the tagged >> > commit >> > > missing from any of the branches (I believe it was from a tag from >> Tim, >> > not >> > > calling you out here Tim, but just for precedence purposes as a >> concrete >> > > example for this current issue). >> > > >> > > I hadn't updated my local cordova-android repo since yesterday. I see >> > that >> > > a commit by Joe Bowser with subject "Tagging 3.1.0" with >> > > hash 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3 - this was from the >> 3.1.0 >> > > tag. I searched using git for any local or remote branches (my last >> > Apache >> > > fetch) and it did not contain the commit. >> > > >> > > $ git branch --contains 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3 (for >> > local >> > > branches) >> > > $ git branch -a --contains 6f17e9fc9cd27f031d94d67fe118008d5f6ec5b3 >> (for >> > > remote branches) >> > > >> > > Thus, when someone pulled down the 3.1.x branch, it did not contain >> your >> > > commit. I assume, based on looking at the 3.1.x branch, and not >> seeing it >> > > tagged, that person then tagged it, and it appeared that your commit >> was >> > > removed. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise, imo. >> > > >> > > I have zipped up my local repo and can provide it to anyone if they >> want >> > to >> > > take a look. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Andrew Grieve < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > Sorry, was away from my computer for a while there. >> > > > > >> > > > > Joe, sounds like what happened was that you pushed the tag without >> > > > pushing >> > > > > the branch. That has happened a few times in the past by others >> > > > (including >> > > > > myself). No biggie. The ASF repos disable git push --force, so I >> > don't >> > > > > think it's even possible for tampering to happen. >> > > > >> > > > I want github back! Apache is breaking git. :( >> > > > >> > > > As far as tampering, it's totally possible for it to happen. Sadly, >> > > > it looks exactly like this. I apologize for getting super aggro >> about >> > > > the git screw-up. >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
