A note on best practice. Prior to calling a release (i.e. when an RM is stepping up to create a release) there should be a "[DISCUSS] release x.y.z"
This provides a place for people to air concerns without affecting the VOTE thread. Ideally the VOTE thread is just a series of +1s and, in exceptional circumstances, some -1's See my other thread for clarity on what -1's mean. Ross Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Senior Technology Evangelist Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation On 19 February 2014 10:37, 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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
