More communication is always better -- I feel that might be the missing piece here.
Let's try to move on from this and discuss this in the call to solve this situation: 1. Identify what's broken and fix that, with verifying tests 2. Revert for now so others can continue, while trying to fix what's broken in the new patch (in a branch for merging later) 3. Another option(?) I would err on the side of more communication over less (Apache "Community over Code" etc). A massive patch integration without discussion imo is not pro-community. I may have missed it (apologies if I did) but the series of patches started July 3, 2014 and I did not see any discussion of it in dev@ prior to that. Shaz On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > Let's discuss tonight, but it is actually pretty easy to revert things > without --force. "git revert" can do it, or "git checkout HASH . && git > commit --all -a" > > Also - what's broken? Just did a test compile with 4.0.x & > https://github.com/clelland/cordova-crosswalk-engine#plugin_with_arm_binary > and it worked fine. > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Due to the recent changes, I propose that we revert everything back to >> a prior commit on this branch. Given that we use the interfaces to >> define the API for the ThirdParty WebViews used by Crosswalk and >> others, the irony of reverting is should be clear. The fact is that >> we can't have people dumping hundreds of commits that totally destroy >> months of work that we've done, including all the consensus-building >> that was done. This totally undermines the feeling that everyone is >> contributing in good faith. >> >> Honestly, if I even remotely tried to do the same thing, I know that >> many people on this project would have major objections to this, so I >> don't know why people are being silent about this now. We can't have >> hundreds of commits just dumped into any branch of the ASF repos, >> since we have no easy way to do a revert of this. We have no --force, >> and I'm probably going to have to fork and delete the 4.0.x branch. >> I'm going to do this after the conference call, but I'm extremely >> upset about the recent changes. >> >> We can't just say "shit will be broken anyway" and use it as an excuse >> to break other people's work. I honestly don't know what to say about >> this at this point, since we've never had to do something like this >> before. I'm extremely frustrated at the fact that I've been ignored >> every time I've raised concerns on this list and that some of us are >> held to higher standards than others. >> >> I really hope we can talk about this on the call, because this is >> beyond unacceptable. I'm not sure what was supposed to be >> accomplished, and why talking about features is some sort of unknown >> barrier that we're trying to avoid. At this point, there's no way we >> could even remotely vote on a major release. >> >> How can we work past this so that we can actually work on this project >> again? >> >> Joe >>
