Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>]

I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That gives us
a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before the
end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
release.

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

Also - if coho is not working for you or that you feel like it's slowing
you down, feel free to just run the same old git commands directly.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>wrote:

> Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag
> them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a
> vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag.
>
> Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the tag-release
> command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's doing
> the right thing.
>
> Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
>> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
>> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
>> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>>
>> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
>> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
>> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
>> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
>> it not being on a named branch:
>>
>> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not being
>> on a
>>               ^
>> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a named
>> branch
>>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>>     at Array.forEach (native)
>>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
>> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>>
>> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
>>
>> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
>> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
>> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
>> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of
>> > the existing process.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
>> >> tested, stable, and works'.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
>> >> > major process change.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Sgtm!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That
>> >> gives
>> >> >>> >us
>> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released
>> before
>> >> the
>> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the
>> 2.9
>> >> >>> >release.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>]

iOS, OS X tagged


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>
> Cheers,
> -Steve
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out
> stack
> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
> > > debug?
> > >
> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the
> stack
> > >> trace:
> > >>
> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> > >>
> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says
> to
> > tag
> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag
> as
> > a
> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform
> > flag.
> > >> >
> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> > >> tag-release
> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
> > >> doing
> > >> > the right thing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
> > ballot
> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest
> of
> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
> > about
> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
> > >> being
> > >> >> on a
> > >> >>               ^
> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
> > >> named
> > >> >> branch
> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good
> ideas
> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Joe
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some
> > steps
> > >> of
> > >> >> > the existing process.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part
> is
> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems
> > like a
> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
> Monday.
> > >> That
> > >> >> >> gives
> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
> > released
> > >> >> before
> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after
> > the
> > >> 2.9
> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

If someone wants to re-tag Android to get rid of the merge commit, fine. I
don't care. Seriously, committing to this project is really becoming a pain
in the ass with all the git acrobatics that keep getting introduced.
On Jun 25, 2013 9:36 PM, "Michal Mocny" <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:

> Yeah, rebase private (local) commits liberally, never rebase public
> commits.
>
> Also, merge commits do come with a cost.  Aside from the extra commits
> adding noise, it becomes more difficult to track branch history for
> anything complicated.
>
> ** Aside ** RE: git rebase origin/master after an accidental merge: thats a
> very simple solution, and I just ran into this problem today.  Instead, I
> had git reset --hard to my previous local parent (and had to deal with
> figuring out which commit that was, as git log shows mangled history
> post-merge, though I've now learned that git reset --hard HEAD@{1} may do
> that), followed by a normal rebase.  Stack Overflow didn't help with that
> one, so go answer
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2389361/undo-a-git-merge ;)
>
> -Michal
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > A personal preference perhaps, but an Apache no-no? Are you sure? This
> > isn't re-writing upstream history, and would go along the same lines as
> > saying that you should never squash your work-in-progress commits, which
> > we've been advocating that you do on all of our wiki pages. We also tell
> > contributors to rebase when they update pull requests instead of making
> > commit after commit.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Honestly, I would rather have merge commits in the repo than start
> > > screwing with the history of the repo with a rebase.  Re-writing
> > > history is a big Apache no-no.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > A couple git tips that I learned recently:
> > > >
> > > > git pull --rebase will eliminate merge commits that are due to
> pulling
> > > when
> > > > a local commit has been made.
> > > >
> > > > If you failed to --rebase and have a merge commit:
> > > >
> > > > git rebase origin/master (assuming you're on master) will reorder
> your
> > > > commits to make your local ones come after remote ones, and also
> > > eliminate
> > > > the merge commit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run.
> I
> > > >> then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
> > > >> anything that required re-testing.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what
> errors
> > > >> you're
> > > >> > now seeing.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the
> > tag
> > > >> > points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x
> > branch?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <
> > stevengill97@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hey All,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am
> > > heading
> > > >> >> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out
> > tomorrow
> > > >> >> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from
> > > tagging?
> > > >> >> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Cheers,
> > > >> >> -Steve
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully
> > abandoned
> > > >> >> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the
> > old
> > > >> >> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the
> platform
> > > >> >> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > agrieve@chromium.org
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it
> prints
> > > out
> > > >> >> stack
> > > >> >> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> > > >> >> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it
> > > >> easier to
> > > >> >> > > debug?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the
> > > >> problem.
> > > >> >> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag
> was a
> > > new
> > > >> >> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <
> bowserj@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already
> posted
> > > the
> > > >> >> stack
> > > >> >> > >> trace:
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I
> supposed
> > > to
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal?
> > Can
> > > we
> > > >> >> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> > > >> >> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira
> > bug
> > > >> says
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > tag
> > > >> >> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the
> > using a
> > > >> tag
> > > >> >> as
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r
> > > >> active-platform
> > > >> >> > flag.
> > > >> >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to
> > the
> > > >> >> > >> tag-release
> > > >> >> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to
> > > ensure
> > > >> it's
> > > >> >> > >> doing
> > > >> >> > >> > the right thing.
> > > >> >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of
> > running
> > > >> "git
> > > >> >> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> > > >> >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > > bowserj@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because
> > instead
> > > of
> > > >> all
> > > >> >> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one
> > > person
> > > >> >> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is
> stuffing
> > > the
> > > >> >> > ballot
> > > >> >> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from
> > the
> > > >> rest
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this
> > > release.
> > > >> >> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing
> > > >> cordova-js,
> > > >> >> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting
> an
> > > error
> > > >> >> > about
> > > >> >> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> > > >> >> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' +
> shjs.pwd()
> > > + '
> > > >> not
> > > >> >> > >> being
> > > >> >> > >> >> on a
> > > >> >> > >> >>               ^
> > > >> >> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not
> > > being
> > > >> on a
> > > >> >> > >> named
> > > >> >> > >> >> branch
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> > > >> >> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at forEachRepo
> > (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at updateRepos
> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> > > >> >> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous>
> > > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> > > >> >> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this
> > to
> > > >> work?
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after
> the
> > > 3.0
> > > >> >> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed
> > > >> changes to
> > > >> >> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some
> > > good
> > > >> >> ideas
> > > >> >> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> Joe
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > >> >> agrieve@chromium.org
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does
> > automate
> > > >> some
> > > >> >> > steps
> > > >> >> > >> of
> > > >> >> > >> >> > the existing process.
> > > >> >> > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <
> > b@brian.io>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the
> > > platform
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey
> > this
> > > >> part
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > > >> bowserj@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?
>  That
> > > >> seems
> > > >> >> > like a
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > >> >> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> > > >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any
> steps.
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <
> > > >> fil@adobe.com>
> > > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <
> > > >> stevengill97@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0
> final
> > on
> > > >> >> Monday.
> > > >> >> > >> That
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> gives
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged
> > and
> > > >> >> > released
> > > >> >> > >> >> before
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> the
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0
> > branches
> > > >> after
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > >> 2.9
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> > >> >>
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>]

Yeah, rebase private (local) commits liberally, never rebase public commits.

Also, merge commits do come with a cost.  Aside from the extra commits
adding noise, it becomes more difficult to track branch history for
anything complicated.

** Aside ** RE: git rebase origin/master after an accidental merge: thats a
very simple solution, and I just ran into this problem today.  Instead, I
had git reset --hard to my previous local parent (and had to deal with
figuring out which commit that was, as git log shows mangled history
post-merge, though I've now learned that git reset --hard HEAD@{1} may do
that), followed by a normal rebase.  Stack Overflow didn't help with that
one, so go answer
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2389361/undo-a-git-merge ;)

-Michal


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:

> A personal preference perhaps, but an Apache no-no? Are you sure? This
> isn't re-writing upstream history, and would go along the same lines as
> saying that you should never squash your work-in-progress commits, which
> we've been advocating that you do on all of our wiki pages. We also tell
> contributors to rebase when they update pull requests instead of making
> commit after commit.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Honestly, I would rather have merge commits in the repo than start
> > screwing with the history of the repo with a rebase.  Re-writing
> > history is a big Apache no-no.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > A couple git tips that I learned recently:
> > >
> > > git pull --rebase will eliminate merge commits that are due to pulling
> > when
> > > a local commit has been made.
> > >
> > > If you failed to --rebase and have a merge commit:
> > >
> > > git rebase origin/master (assuming you're on master) will reorder your
> > > commits to make your local ones come after remote ones, and also
> > eliminate
> > > the merge commit.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run. I
> > >> then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
> > >> anything that required re-testing.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors
> > >> you're
> > >> > now seeing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
> > >> >
> > >> > There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the
> tag
> > >> > points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x
> branch?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <
> stevengill97@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hey All,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am
> > heading
> > >> >> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out
> tomorrow
> > >> >> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from
> > tagging?
> > >> >> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Cheers,
> > >> >> -Steve
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully
> abandoned
> > >> >> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the
> old
> > >> >> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> > >> >> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> > agrieve@chromium.org
> > >> >
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints
> > out
> > >> >> stack
> > >> >> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> > >> >> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it
> > >> easier to
> > >> >> > > debug?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the
> > >> problem.
> > >> >> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a
> > new
> > >> >> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted
> > the
> > >> >> stack
> > >> >> > >> trace:
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed
> > to
> > >> be
> > >> >> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal?
> Can
> > we
> > >> >> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> > >> >> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira
> bug
> > >> says
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > tag
> > >> >> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the
> using a
> > >> tag
> > >> >> as
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r
> > >> active-platform
> > >> >> > flag.
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to
> the
> > >> >> > >> tag-release
> > >> >> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to
> > ensure
> > >> it's
> > >> >> > >> doing
> > >> >> > >> > the right thing.
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of
> running
> > >> "git
> > >> >> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > bowserj@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because
> instead
> > of
> > >> all
> > >> >> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one
> > person
> > >> >> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing
> > the
> > >> >> > ballot
> > >> >> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from
> the
> > >> rest
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this
> > release.
> > >> >> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing
> > >> cordova-js,
> > >> >> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an
> > error
> > >> >> > about
> > >> >> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> > >> >> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd()
> > + '
> > >> not
> > >> >> > >> being
> > >> >> > >> >> on a
> > >> >> > >> >>               ^
> > >> >> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not
> > being
> > >> on a
> > >> >> > >> named
> > >> >> > >> >> branch
> > >> >> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> > >> >> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> > >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> > >> >> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at forEachRepo
> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> > >> >> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous>
> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> > >> >> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this
> to
> > >> work?
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the
> > 3.0
> > >> >> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed
> > >> changes to
> > >> >> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some
> > good
> > >> >> ideas
> > >> >> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> Joe
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > >> >> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does
> automate
> > >> some
> > >> >> > steps
> > >> >> > >> of
> > >> >> > >> >> > the existing process.
> > >> >> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <
> b@brian.io>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the
> > platform
> > >> >> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey
> this
> > >> part
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > >> bowserj@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That
> > >> seems
> > >> >> > like a
> > >> >> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > >> >> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> > >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <
> > >> fil@adobe.com>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <
> > >> stevengill97@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final
> on
> > >> >> Monday.
> > >> >> > >> That
> > >> >> > >> >> >> gives
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged
> and
> > >> >> > released
> > >> >> > >> >> before
> > >> >> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0
> branches
> > >> after
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > >> 2.9
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> > >> >>
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

A personal preference perhaps, but an Apache no-no? Are you sure? This
isn't re-writing upstream history, and would go along the same lines as
saying that you should never squash your work-in-progress commits, which
we've been advocating that you do on all of our wiki pages. We also tell
contributors to rebase when they update pull requests instead of making
commit after commit.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Honestly, I would rather have merge commits in the repo than start
> screwing with the history of the repo with a rebase.  Re-writing
> history is a big Apache no-no.
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > A couple git tips that I learned recently:
> >
> > git pull --rebase will eliminate merge commits that are due to pulling
> when
> > a local commit has been made.
> >
> > If you failed to --rebase and have a merge commit:
> >
> > git rebase origin/master (assuming you're on master) will reorder your
> > commits to make your local ones come after remote ones, and also
> eliminate
> > the merge commit.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run. I
> >> then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
> >> anything that required re-testing.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors
> >> you're
> >> > now seeing.
> >> >
> >> > Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
> >> >
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
> >> >
> >> > There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the tag
> >> > points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x branch?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hey All,
> >> >>
> >> >> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am
> heading
> >> >> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
> >> >> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from
> tagging?
> >> >> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
> >> >>
> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> -Steve
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
> >> >> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
> >> >> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> >> >> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints
> out
> >> >> stack
> >> >> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> >> >> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it
> >> easier to
> >> >> > > debug?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the
> >> problem.
> >> >> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a
> new
> >> >> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted
> the
> >> >> stack
> >> >> > >> trace:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed
> to
> >> be
> >> >> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can
> we
> >> >> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> >> >> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug
> >> says
> >> >> to
> >> >> > tag
> >> >> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a
> >> tag
> >> >> as
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r
> >> active-platform
> >> >> > flag.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> >> >> > >> tag-release
> >> >> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to
> ensure
> >> it's
> >> >> > >> doing
> >> >> > >> > the right thing.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running
> >> "git
> >> >> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <
> bowserj@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead
> of
> >> all
> >> >> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one
> person
> >> >> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing
> the
> >> >> > ballot
> >> >> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the
> >> rest
> >> >> of
> >> >> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this
> release.
> >> >> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing
> >> cordova-js,
> >> >> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an
> error
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> >> >> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd()
> + '
> >> not
> >> >> > >> being
> >> >> > >> >> on a
> >> >> > >> >>               ^
> >> >> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not
> being
> >> on a
> >> >> > >> named
> >> >> > >> >> branch
> >> >> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> >> >> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> >> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> >> >> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> >> >> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> >> >> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> >> >> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> >> >> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> >> >> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> >> >> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous>
> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> >> >> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to
> >> work?
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the
> 3.0
> >> >> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed
> >> changes to
> >> >> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some
> good
> >> >> ideas
> >> >> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> Joe
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> >> agrieve@chromium.org
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate
> >> some
> >> >> > steps
> >> >> > >> of
> >> >> > >> >> > the existing process.
> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the
> platform
> >> >> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this
> >> part
> >> >> is
> >> >> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> >> >> > >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <
> >> bowserj@gmail.com>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That
> >> seems
> >> >> > like a
> >> >> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> >> >> > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> >> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <
> >> fil@adobe.com>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <
> >> stevengill97@gmail.com>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
> >> >> Monday.
> >> >> > >> That
> >> >> > >> >> >> gives
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
> >> >> > released
> >> >> > >> >> before
> >> >> > >> >> >> the
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches
> >> after
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > >> 2.9
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > >> >> >>
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

Honestly, I would rather have merge commits in the repo than start
screwing with the history of the repo with a rebase.  Re-writing
history is a big Apache no-no.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> A couple git tips that I learned recently:
>
> git pull --rebase will eliminate merge commits that are due to pulling when
> a local commit has been made.
>
> If you failed to --rebase and have a merge commit:
>
> git rebase origin/master (assuming you're on master) will reorder your
> commits to make your local ones come after remote ones, and also eliminate
> the merge commit.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run. I
>> then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
>> anything that required re-testing.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors
>> you're
>> > now seeing.
>> >
>> > Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
>> >
>> > There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the tag
>> > points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x branch?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey All,
>> >>
>> >> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
>> >> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
>> >> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
>> >> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
>> >>
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Steve
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
>> >> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
>> >> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
>> >> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out
>> >> stack
>> >> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
>> >> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it
>> easier to
>> >> > > debug?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the
>> problem.
>> >> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
>> >> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the
>> >> stack
>> >> > >> trace:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to
>> be
>> >> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
>> >> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
>> >> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug
>> says
>> >> to
>> >> > tag
>> >> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a
>> tag
>> >> as
>> >> > a
>> >> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r
>> active-platform
>> >> > flag.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
>> >> > >> tag-release
>> >> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure
>> it's
>> >> > >> doing
>> >> > >> > the right thing.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running
>> "git
>> >> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of
>> all
>> >> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
>> >> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
>> >> > ballot
>> >> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the
>> rest
>> >> of
>> >> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
>> >> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing
>> cordova-js,
>> >> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
>> >> > about
>> >> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>> >> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + '
>> not
>> >> > >> being
>> >> > >> >> on a
>> >> > >> >>               ^
>> >> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being
>> on a
>> >> > >> named
>> >> > >> >> branch
>> >> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
>> >> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>> >> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
>> >> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>> >> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>> >> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
>> >> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>> >> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>> >> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous>
>> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>> >> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to
>> work?
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
>> >> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed
>> changes to
>> >> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good
>> >> ideas
>> >> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Joe
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> >> agrieve@chromium.org
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate
>> some
>> >> > steps
>> >> > >> of
>> >> > >> >> > the existing process.
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> >> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this
>> part
>> >> is
>> >> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
>> >> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <
>> bowserj@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That
>> seems
>> >> > like a
>> >> > >> >> >> > major process change.
>> >> > >> >> >> >
>> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> >> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
>> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >> > >> >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> >> > >> >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <
>> fil@adobe.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
>> >> > >> >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <
>> stevengill97@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
>> >> Monday.
>> >> > >> That
>> >> > >> >> >> gives
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >us
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
>> >> > released
>> >> > >> >> before
>> >> > >> >> >> the
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches
>> after
>> >> > the
>> >> > >> 2.9
>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
>> >> > >> >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >> >>>
>> >> > >> >> >>
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

A couple git tips that I learned recently:

git pull --rebase will eliminate merge commits that are due to pulling when
a local commit has been made.

If you failed to --rebase and have a merge commit:

git rebase origin/master (assuming you're on master) will reorder your
commits to make your local ones come after remote ones, and also eliminate
the merge commit.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run. I
> then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
> anything that required re-testing.
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors
> you're
> > now seeing.
> >
> > Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
> >
> > There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the tag
> > points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x branch?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey All,
> >>
> >> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
> >> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
> >> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
> >> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
> >> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
> >> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> >> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out
> >> stack
> >> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> >> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it
> easier to
> >> > > debug?
> >> > >
> >> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the
> problem.
> >> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
> >> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the
> >> stack
> >> > >> trace:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to
> be
> >> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
> >> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> >> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug
> says
> >> to
> >> > tag
> >> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a
> tag
> >> as
> >> > a
> >> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r
> active-platform
> >> > flag.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> >> > >> tag-release
> >> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure
> it's
> >> > >> doing
> >> > >> > the right thing.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running
> "git
> >> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of
> all
> >> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> >> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
> >> > ballot
> >> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the
> rest
> >> of
> >> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> >> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing
> cordova-js,
> >> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
> >> > about
> >> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> >> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + '
> not
> >> > >> being
> >> > >> >> on a
> >> > >> >>               ^
> >> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being
> on a
> >> > >> named
> >> > >> >> branch
> >> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> >> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> >> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> >> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> >> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> >> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> >> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> >> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> >> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> >> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous>
> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> >> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to
> work?
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> >> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed
> changes to
> >> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good
> >> ideas
> >> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Joe
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> agrieve@chromium.org
> >> > >
> >> > >> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate
> some
> >> > steps
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> >> > the existing process.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> >> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this
> part
> >> is
> >> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <
> bowserj@gmail.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That
> seems
> >> > like a
> >> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> >> > >> >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> > >> >> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <
> fil@adobe.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> >>
> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <
> stevengill97@gmail.com>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
> >> Monday.
> >> > >> That
> >> > >> >> >> gives
> >> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> >> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
> >> > released
> >> > >> >> before
> >> > >> >> >> the
> >> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches
> after
> >> > the
> >> > >> 2.9
> >> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >> >>>
> >> > >> >> >>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

I pushed to the 2.9.0 branch, but someone snuck a commit in on run. I
then decided to re-tag it, since this is a script change, and not
anything that required re-testing.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors you're
> now seeing.
>
> Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3
>
> There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the tag
> points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x branch?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
>> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
>> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
>> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
>> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
>> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
>> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out
>> stack
>> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
>> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
>> > > debug?
>> > >
>> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
>> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
>> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the
>> stack
>> > >> trace:
>> > >>
>> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
>> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
>> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
>> > >>
>> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
>> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says
>> to
>> > tag
>> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag
>> as
>> > a
>> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform
>> > flag.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
>> > >> tag-release
>> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
>> > >> doing
>> > >> > the right thing.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
>> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
>> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
>> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
>> > ballot
>> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest
>> of
>> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
>> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
>> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
>> > about
>> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
>> > >> being
>> > >> >> on a
>> > >> >>               ^
>> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
>> > >> named
>> > >> >> branch
>> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
>> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
>> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
>> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
>> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
>> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good
>> ideas
>> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Joe
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> agrieve@chromium.org
>> > >
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some
>> > steps
>> > >> of
>> > >> >> > the existing process.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part
>> is
>> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems
>> > like a
>> > >> >> >> > major process change.
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
>> Monday.
>> > >> That
>> > >> >> >> gives
>> > >> >> >> >>> >us
>> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
>> > released
>> > >> >> before
>> > >> >> >> the
>> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after
>> > the
>> > >> 2.9
>> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

Hey Joe - not sure what happened, but would love to know what errors you're
now seeing.

Looks like the tagging of Android didn't go quite right:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-android.git;a=log;h=df1536ea77e97b7d362a19582f8beddd168c5ec3

There shouldn't be a merge commit (I don't think anyways), and the tag
points past the branch head. Did you forget to push the 2.9.x branch?


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
> out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
> before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
> Android is the only platform tagged so far.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>
> Cheers,
> -Steve
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
> > using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
> > fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> > maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out
> stack
> > > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> > > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
> > > debug?
> > >
> > > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
> > > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
> > > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the
> stack
> > >> trace:
> > >>
> > >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
> > >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
> > >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> > >>
> > >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> > >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says
> to
> > tag
> > >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag
> as
> > a
> > >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform
> > flag.
> > >> >
> > >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> > >> tag-release
> > >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
> > >> doing
> > >> > the right thing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> > >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
> > >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> > >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
> > ballot
> > >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest
> of
> > >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> > >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
> > >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
> > about
> > >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> > >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
> > >> being
> > >> >> on a
> > >> >>               ^
> > >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
> > >> named
> > >> >> branch
> > >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> > >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> > >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> > >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> > >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> > >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> > >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> > >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> > >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> > >> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> > >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> > >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
> > >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good
> ideas
> > >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Joe
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some
> > steps
> > >> of
> > >> >> > the existing process.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>
> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> > >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part
> is
> > >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems
> > like a
> > >> >> >> > major process change.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on
> Monday.
> > >> That
> > >> >> >> gives
> > >> >> >> >>> >us
> > >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
> > released
> > >> >> before
> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after
> > the
> > >> 2.9
> > >> >> >> >>> >release.
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>]

Hey All,

I would really appreciate if we could get the tags rolling. I am heading
out for nodeconf on Thursday and want to get the release out tomorrow
before I leave. Are there any issues holding people back from tagging?
Android is the only platform tagged so far.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981

Cheers,
-Steve


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
> using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
> fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
> maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out stack
> > traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> > node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
> > debug?
> >
> > If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
> > Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
> > addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the stack
> >> trace:
> >>
> >> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
> >> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
> >> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
> >>
> >> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> >> refs/heads/2.9.x
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to
> tag
> >> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as
> a
> >> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform
> flag.
> >> >
> >> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> >> tag-release
> >> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
> >> doing
> >> > the right thing.
> >> >
> >> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> >> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
> >> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> >> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the
> ballot
> >> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
> >> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> >> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
> >> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error
> about
> >> >> it not being on a named branch:
> >> >>
> >> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> >> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
> >> being
> >> >> on a
> >> >>               ^
> >> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
> >> named
> >> >> branch
> >> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> >> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> >> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> >> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> >> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> >> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> >> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> >> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> >> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> >> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> >> >>
> >> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
> >> >>
> >> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> >> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
> >> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
> >> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> >> >>
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some
> steps
> >> of
> >> >> > the existing process.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> >> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
> >> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems
> like a
> >> >> >> > major process change.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday.
> >> That
> >> >> >> gives
> >> >> >> >>> >us
> >> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and
> released
> >> >> before
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after
> the
> >> 2.9
> >> >> >> >>> >release.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

I'm now getting even worse errors with coho.  I've fully abandoned
using that tool for this release and I'm tagging everything the old
fashioned way.  We should create tickets for each of the platform
maintainers to tag their releases so we can get this rolling.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out stack
> traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
> node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
> debug?
>
> If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
> Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
> addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the stack
>> trace:
>>
>> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
>> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
>> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
>>
>> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
>> refs/heads/2.9.x
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag
>> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a
>> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag.
>> >
>> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
>> tag-release
>> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
>> doing
>> > the right thing.
>> >
>> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
>> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
>> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
>> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
>> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>> >>
>> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
>> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
>> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
>> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
>> >> it not being on a named branch:
>> >>
>> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
>> being
>> >> on a
>> >>               ^
>> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
>> named
>> >> branch
>> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
>> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
>> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
>> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>> >>
>> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
>> >>
>> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
>> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
>> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
>> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>> >>
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps
>> of
>> >> > the existing process.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
>> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
>> >> >> > major process change.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
>> agrieve@chromium.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday.
>> That
>> >> >> gives
>> >> >> >>> >us
>> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released
>> >> before
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the
>> 2.9
>> >> >> >>> >release.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

The tool logs most of the commands that it executes, it prints out stack
traces when it fails, and you can step through the code using
node_inspector. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to
debug?

If you don't have a --short, then that would certainly be the problem.
Perhaps your git version is older than mine and that flag was a new
addition? I just pushed a change to not use --short.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the stack
> trace:
>
> Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
> on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
> make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?
>
> jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
> refs/heads/2.9.x
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag
> > them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a
> > vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag.
> >
> > Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the
> tag-release
> > command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's
> doing
> > the right thing.
> >
> > Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> > symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
> >> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> >> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
> >> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
> >>
> >> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
> >> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> >> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
> >> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
> >> it not being on a named branch:
> >>
> >> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
> >>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not
> being
> >> on a
> >>               ^
> >> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a
> named
> >> branch
> >>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName
> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
> >>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
> >>     at Array.forEach (native)
> >>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
> >>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
> >>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> >> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
> >>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
> >>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
> >>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
> >>
> >> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
> >>
> >> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> >> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
> >> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
> >> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps
> of
> >> > the existing process.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> >> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
> >> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
> >> >> > major process change.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> Created Release bug:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Sgtm!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday.
> That
> >> >> gives
> >> >> >>> >us
> >> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released
> >> before
> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the
> 2.9
> >> >> >>> >release.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

I don't have a --short for symbolic-ref, and I already posted the stack trace:

Here's what I get when I'm on the 2.9.x branch.  Am I supposed to be
on something else?  Shouldn't coho be smart enough to deal? Can we
make it easier to debug when things go off the rails?

jbowser-MacBookPro:cordova-js jbowser$ git symbolic-ref HEAD
refs/heads/2.9.x



On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag
> them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a
> vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag.
>
> Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the tag-release
> command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's doing
> the right thing.
>
> Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
> symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
>> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
>> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
>> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>>
>> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
>> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
>> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
>> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
>> it not being on a named branch:
>>
>> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not being
>> on a
>>               ^
>> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a named
>> branch
>>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>>     at Array.forEach (native)
>>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
>> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>>
>> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
>>
>> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
>> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
>> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
>> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of
>> > the existing process.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
>> >> tested, stable, and works'.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
>> >> > major process change.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Sgtm!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That
>> >> gives
>> >> >>> >us
>> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released
>> before
>> >> the
>> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
>> >> >>> >release.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

Ahh, okay, I see what you mean about the change. The jira bug says to tag
them all in one command, which doesn't fit in with the using a tag as a
vote idea. I'll update the JIRA issue to not use -r active-platform flag.

Joe - I just pushed a change that adds a --pretend flag to the tag-release
command. Probably should have had this from the start to ensure it's doing
the right thing.

Can you post your log, and also tell me the output of running "git
symbolic-ref --short HEAD" from cordova-js?


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
> the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
> tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
> box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.
>
> Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
> the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
> Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
> whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
> it not being on a named branch:
>
> /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
>         throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not being
> on a
>               ^
> Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a named
> branch
>     at retrieveCurrentBranchName (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
>     at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
>     at Array.forEach (native)
>     at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
>     at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
>     at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
>     at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
>     at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
>     at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
>
> Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?
>
> Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
> release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
> both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
> here, but this is slowing things down considerably.
>
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of
> > the existing process.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> >> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
> >> tested, stable, and works'.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
> >> > major process change.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >> >>
> >> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Sgtm!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That
> >> gives
> >> >>> >us
> >> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released
> before
> >> the
> >> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
> >> >>> >release.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

Coho does introduce a change in the process, because instead of all
the platform maintainers tagging their code, we have one person
tagging everything.  If a tag is the vote, this is stuffing the ballot
box.  It's bad enough that we can vote twice.

Now, I'm personally OK with us decoupling automation from the rest of
the process, but right now I'm not OK with tagging this release.
Also, I'm having some issues with tagging the existing cordova-js,
whenever I try and use the cordova tool, I keep getting an error about
it not being on a named branch:

/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488
        throw new Error('Aborted due to repo ' + shjs.pwd() + ' not being on a
              ^
Error: Aborted due to repo /Users/jbowser/cordova-js not being on a named branch
    at retrieveCurrentBranchName (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:488:15)
    at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:778:9
    at /Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:290:9
    at Array.forEach (native)
    at forEachRepo (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:281:11)
    at updateRepos (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:776:5)
    at Object.prepareReleaseBranchCommand [as entryPoint]
(/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:898:5)
    at main (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1118:25)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/jbowser/cordova-coho/coho:1120:1)
    at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)

Are there additional steps that we need to do to get this to work?

Finally, can we not change how we do things until after the 3.0
release is out? I'm really not liking all these proposed changes to
both our process and APIs at the 11th hour.  There's some good ideas
here, but this is slowing things down considerably.

Joe

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of
> the existing process.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
>> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
>> tested, stable, and works'.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
>> > major process change.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>> >>
>> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sgtm!
>> >>>
>> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That
>> gives
>> >>> >us
>> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before
>> the
>> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
>> >>> >release.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

Coho introduces no change in process, but it does automate some steps of
the existing process.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:

> Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
> maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
> tested, stable, and works'.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
> > major process change.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
> >>
> >> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sgtm!
> >>>
> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That
> gives
> >>> >us
> >>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before
> the
> >>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
> >>> >release.
> >>>
> >>>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>]

Yes. The idea would be, as it always has been, the platform
maintainers tag as their "vote". That tag says, 'hey this part is
tested, stable, and works'.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
> major process change.
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>>
>> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sgtm!
>>>
>>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That gives
>>> >us
>>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before the
>>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
>>> >release.
>>>
>>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

So, we're using coho for tagging everything now?  That seems like a
major process change.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981
>
> Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Sgtm!
>>
>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That gives
>> >us
>> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before the
>> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
>> >release.
>>
>>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

Created Release bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3981

Please update the subtasks if I've missed any steps.


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:

> Sgtm!
>
> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That gives
> >us
> >a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before the
> >end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
> >release.
>
>

Re: Cordova 2.9.0 Final

[Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>]

Sgtm!

On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I say we begin the tagging process for 2.9.0 final on Monday. That gives
>us
>a couple of days to get everything tested, tagged and released before the
>end of the month. We can also merge in 3.0.0 branches after the 2.9
>release.