I *think* Andrew means its helpful to have an extra set of eyes. The ideal would be for us to re-instate that part of the program BEFORE we cut release bits. A retroactive check doesn't hurt though really it should never necessary after an RC.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
