> Tested from master branch on GitHub using
>> https://github.com/dpa99c/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser-test
>>
>> on iOS for 3.2.0 RC2 (no changes to Android since first 3.2.0 minor release
>> candidate)
>>
>> checked that the git tag is consistent
>>
>>
;
> Tested from master branch on GitHub using
> https://github.com/dpa99c/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser-test
>
> on iOS for 3.2.0 RC2 (no changes to Android since first 3.2.0 minor release
> candidate)
>
> checked that the git tag is consistent
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:3
+1
Tested from master branch on GitHub using
https://github.com/dpa99c/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser-test
on iOS for 3.2.0 RC2 (no changes to Android since first 3.2.0 minor release
candidate)
checked that the git tag is consistent
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:39 AM Niklas Merz wrote:
> Ple
Please review and vote on the release of this plugins release
by replying to this email (and keep discussion on the DISCUSS thread)
The plugins have been published to dist/dev:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cordova/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser-3.2.0-RC2/
The packages were published from
t;>> > > That being said, I'm not totally opposed to us just doing a
> 2.7.0
> > > >>> > > release assuming that we can actually write the correct version
> > > number
> > > >>> > > in the correct fields. (And yes, I'm also at fault for doing
> > > this).
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Filip Maj
> > wrote:
> > > >>> > >> What broke?
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >>>Hey
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning
> > > broke.
> > > >>> > >>>Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release
> > > before
> > > >>> > >>>we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2
> > > today for
> > > >>> > >>>this?
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>>Thoughts?
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>>Joe
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>
ing said, I'm not totally opposed to us just doing a 2.7.0
> > >>> > > release assuming that we can actually write the correct version
> > number
> > >>> > > in the correct fields. (And yes, I'm also at fault for doing
> > this).
> >
t doing a 2.7.0
> >>> > > release assuming that we can actually write the correct version
> number
> >>> > > in the correct fields. (And yes, I'm also at fault for doing
> this).
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>&g
>
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Filip Maj wrote:
>>> > >> What broke?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>Hey
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
>>> > >>>Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release before
>>> > >>>we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2 today for
>>> > >>>this?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>Thoughts?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>Joe
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>
number
>> > > in the correct fields. (And yes, I'm also at fault for doing this).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Filip Maj wrote:
>> > >> What broke?
>> > >>
>> > &
:
> > >> What broke?
> > >>
> > >> On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Hey
> > >>>
> > >>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
> > >>>Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release before
> > >>>we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2 today for
> > >>>this?
> > >>>
> > >>>Thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>>Joe
> > >>
> >
>
;
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Filip Maj wrote:
> >> What broke?
> >>
> >> On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hey
> >>>
> >>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and th
n 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
>>
>>>Hey
>>>
>>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
>>>Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release before
>>>we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2 today for
>>>this?
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Joe
>>
ect fields. (And yes, I'm also at fault for doing this).
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Filip Maj wrote:
> What broke?
>
> On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
>
>>Hey
>>
>>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
What broke?
On 4/25/13 10:22 AM, "Joe Bowser" wrote:
>Hey
>
>The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
>Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release before
>we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2 tod
Hey
The RC1 release was kind of done too fast, and the versioning broke.
Because of this, I think we should really have an RC2 release before
we do a 2.7.0 final release. Perhaps we should start an RC2 today for
this?
Thoughts?
Joe
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-1982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Steve Gill resolved CB-1982.
Resolution: Fixed
> Tag 2.3.0-rc2
> -
>
> Key: CB-1982
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Joe Bowser deleted CB-2015:
---
> Tag 2.3.0-rc2
> -
>
> Key: CB-2015
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Joe Bowser resolved CB-2015.
Resolution: Duplicate
Duplicate of CB-1982
> Tag 2.3.0-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Joe Bowser updated CB-2015:
---
Summary: Tag 2.3.0-rc2 (was: CLONE - Tag 2.3.0-rc2)
> Tag 2.3.0-
Joe Bowser created CB-2015:
--
Summary: CLONE - Tag 2.3.0-rc2
Key: CB-2015
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2015
Project: Apache Cordova
Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 2.3.0
Michael Brooks created CB-1982:
--
Summary: Tag 2.3.0-rc2
Key: CB-1982
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-1982
Project: Apache Cordova
Issue Type: Task
Affects Versions: 2.3.0
21 matches
Mail list logo
