So I was a bit curious to try this myself, so I ran: > coho --repo cadence repo-clone > coho --repo cadence foreach "git remote -v" > coho --repo cadence foreach "git show-ref 3.4.0"
It seems that cordova-cli is included in the cadence release, but hasn't been tagged passed rc.2 yet? (also, cordova-firefoxos has had no tags from 3.4.0 at all) Sebb, I think thats the best way to know whats in the release, is to use our cordova-coho tool (which help manage all the repos and tag releases automatically). -Michal On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seriously, you can't find that yourself? You clearly know nothing > about this project. > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:30 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20 February 2014 14:47, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> SCM == ? > > > > Source Code / Software Configuration Management > > > >> Do you mean the git tags? > >> All of the repositories are tagged with the version number of the > release. > >> So, "3.4.0" is the tag. > > > > OK, so where are the repos then please? > > Also, if the tag is not immutable, it would help to have the hash. > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:02 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> 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/ > >>> > >>> At the risk of being flamed, I am concerned that the VOTE mail does > >>> not include a link to the SCM tag. > >>> > >>> Why is this important? > >>> > >>> The ASF releases source files which come with a LICENSE (and NOTICE). > >>> It is vital that the release only contains files that are permitted to > >>> be distributed, and we aren't accidentally including files that should > >>> not be distributed. > >>> > >>> Equally, it is important that the source release is not missing any > >>> required files. > >>> > >>> The only practical way to check all the files is to compare the source > >>> archive against the tag(s) it is supposed to contain. > >>> > >>> In theory, an automated build process will ensure that the archive > >>> only contains files from the tag, and does not omit any require files. > >>> However, in practice, the archives are built from workspaces that > >>> contain other files (e.g. compilation output). > >>> I know of at least two projects which used standard automated > >>> procedures (Maven), yet their source releases contained files that > >>> should not have been released. > >>> > >>> Should there be a complaint, it's important that the PMC can show that > >>> due diligence was done in checking the source archive contents. > >>> This will be easier to prove if the VOTE thread contains details of > >>> the SCM tags from which the archive was built. > >>> > >>> The SCM repo provides traceability of provenance. > >>> > >>> So please can someone provide the SCM tag(s) that were used to create > >>> the source release? > >>> > >>> > Voting will go on for 24 hours. > >>> > > >>> > Cheers, > >>> > > >>> > -Steve > >>> >
