This is only useful if your goal is to never release anything.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > I think this demonstrates why the vote can be useful. :P > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> This well illustrates my concern with tying a release to a vote thread. >> There is always going to be a reason to -1, there will always be important >> fixes, and there's always going to be a delays. >> >> The security issues are definitely worthy of a patch release. I don't see >> these windows issues as blocker for this release. Indeed this release >> ideally happened a month ago. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > -1, only because of issues recently found, I think we should address them >> > and re-try 3.4.0 >> > >> > >> Isn't that *why* we have release candidates? >> > >> > Yes, but we should not be adding features between release candidate and >> > release. In this case it is a pretty critical issue, so having looked at >> > it more, I think we should apply the patch. >> > >> > >> The right thing would be to make >> > >> another 3.4.0 (and another if necessary) and vote on *that* one. >> > >> > I agree >> > >> > >> .. Was hoping that the following 2 changes are added for the Windows >> > Platform. >> > >> > If we are doing another release, these changes are extremely low impact, >> > and I would like to include them in 3.4.0 >> > >> > >> > @purplecabbage >> > risingj.com >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH) < >> > panar...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> > >> > > -1 >> > > >> > > Was hoping that the following 2 changes are added for the Windows >> > > Platform. They may need to be in a major release . >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/15 - version of MS >> Build >> > > that is causing issues due to different combinations of Windows 8 and >> > > Windows 8.1, VS 2013 and VS 2014. >> > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/16 - related to >> developer >> > > certificates >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: mmo...@google.com [mailto:mmo...@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal >> > > Mocny >> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:44 AM >> > > To: dev >> > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Cordova 3.4.0 release >> > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:59 AM, purplecabbage >> > > > <purplecabb...@gmail.com >> > > > >wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > IMO, If it was not in the release candidate, it should not be >> pushed >> > > > > into the release. >> > > > > >> > > > > If we need to turn around and do a 3.4.1 to address an issue, then >> > > > > we can do that. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Isn't that *why* we have release candidates? >> > > > >> > > > Isn't this just a case where 3.4.0-rc1 goes to 3.4.0-rc2 (and gets >> > > > voted on >> > > > again) before it becomes 3.4.0 final? >> > > > >> > > > It seems a bit off to have to sacrifice the "3.4.0" name because of a >> > > > release candidate that was voted down. The right thing would be to >> > > > make another 3.4.0 (and another if necessary) and vote on *that* one. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Totally agree. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Ian >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Feb 18, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -1 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There's one iOS fix that I think we should put it (as is just >> > > > > > being discussed on private ML). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:57 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> -1 >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The NOTICE file is incorrect. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The date still says 2012; it should be updated >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The line >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> This product includes software developed by >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> should be [2] >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> This product includes software developed at >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The distinction is important. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The source archive NOTICE file contains the wording >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> "This product includes software developed by Ant-Contrib project >> > > > > >> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ant-contrib). " >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> It seems this relates to ant-contrib-1.0b3.jar which as far as I >> > > > > >> can tell is not *included* in the source archive. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Entries in the NOTICE file must ONLY relate to software that is >> > > > > >> actually included. >> > > > > >> Nothing may be added to the NOTICE file that is not legally >> > > > > >> required >> > > > [1] >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I was unable to check if the contents of the source archive >> > > > > >> agrees with the source code control system - please supply the >> > > > > >> tag(s) from which the source archive was created. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >> > > > > >> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice-text >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>> On 18 February 2014 23:26, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >>> Please review and vote on the Cordova 3.4.0 release. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> You can find the sample release at >> > > > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~steven/ >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Voting will go on for 24 hours. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> Cheers, >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> -Steve >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
