You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> on 2012/03/19 22:39:37 UTC
tag 1.6rc1 fri
any objections?
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Tommy Williams <to...@devgeeks.org>.
+1 (million)
The response not to use the bleeding edge when people complain about things breaking rings a little false when they have to ask on IRC or the Google Group to find a way to even GET one of the older "less bleeding edge" releases.
The number of times I have had to point people to the tags on GitHub is upsetting.
I believe wholeheartedly in "ship early, ship often", but I think an official "stable release" would go a long way to easing tension in the community as a whole.
The Google Group for instance used to be full of people trying to do a particular thing in PhoneGap (Cordova), now it's largely people just trying to get it to work at all. Brian's blog post should help with that if we help get the post in front of people, but I worry about the long term damage that could be done by making this project "just too hard" for devs that aren't intimately involved and following the project fairly closely.
tl;dr version: Agree on the need for an official 'stable' as well as 'bleeding edge' download.
--
Tommy-Carlos Williams
tommy@devgeeks.org
On 21/03/2012, at 10:05 AM, Paul Beusterien wrote:
> From a extended community perspective, the fast cadence is becoming a
> challenge. It would be great to have both a "last stable" and a "bleeding
> edge" release available from download.phonegap.com.
>
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>>> Kind of caught me by surprise there.
>>
>> Ah, ya, Cadence is the key --- a point release / month. Not 6 weeks
>> [tho that has happened]. Each point having a singular goal [across
>> platforms].
>>
>>
>>> I think I'd like to see a little more rigor around a 'release'. I guess
>>> I'm thinking a wiki page per release might be appropriate, providing
>>> planned release dates, rc release dates, content, known breaking changes,
>>> that sort of thing.
>>
>> Started a doc here: http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases
>>
>> Maybe we should get Steve/Tim to update w/ the coho release tool story
>> and we update w/ our preferred plan for release checklisting. (Run the
>> tests, ensure docs are up-to-date, etc)
>>
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Paul Beusterien <pa...@gmail.com>.
>From a extended community perspective, the fast cadence is becoming a
challenge. It would be great to have both a "last stable" and a "bleeding
edge" release available from download.phonegap.com.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > Kind of caught me by surprise there.
>
> Ah, ya, Cadence is the key --- a point release / month. Not 6 weeks
> [tho that has happened]. Each point having a singular goal [across
> platforms].
>
>
> > I think I'd like to see a little more rigor around a 'release'. I guess
> > I'm thinking a wiki page per release might be appropriate, providing
> > planned release dates, rc release dates, content, known breaking changes,
> > that sort of thing.
>
> Started a doc here: http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases
>
> Maybe we should get Steve/Tim to update w/ the coho release tool story
> and we update w/ our preferred plan for release checklisting. (Run the
> tests, ensure docs are up-to-date, etc)
>
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
> Kind of caught me by surprise there.
Ah, ya, Cadence is the key --- a point release / month. Not 6 weeks
[tho that has happened]. Each point having a singular goal [across
platforms].
> I think I'd like to see a little more rigor around a 'release'. I guess
> I'm thinking a wiki page per release might be appropriate, providing
> planned release dates, rc release dates, content, known breaking changes,
> that sort of thing.
Started a doc here: http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases
Maybe we should get Steve/Tim to update w/ the coho release tool story
and we update w/ our preferred plan for release checklisting. (Run the
tests, ensure docs are up-to-date, etc)
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Patrick Mueller <pm...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:39, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> any objections?
>
OK, I'll object. :-)
It feels like we just cut 1.5 last week - actually, it was 2!! whole weeks
ago [1].
Kind of caught me by surprise there.
I think I'd like to see a little more rigor around a 'release'. I guess
I'm thinking a wiki page per release might be appropriate, providing
planned release dates, rc release dates, content, known breaking changes,
that sort of thing.
Using Jira planning facilities would be fine as well - but seems like
overkill to me. Even if we don't do the 'planning' using Jira, I wouldn't
mind a bug-per-release, just so I can watch it, see it in my dashboard
every day, and hopefully it'll have a link to the wiki page in it.
I think we've talked about 'release cadence' before, and perhaps it would
be good to note our current story on that, up on the wiki as well. I was
thinking it was 6 weeks. Maybe the rc release cut is fine, if we're doing
4 more weeks of testing, but I just don't know what the schedule is.
[1] http://phonegap.com/2012/03/06/phonegap-1-5-released/
--
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Becky Gibson <gi...@gmail.com>.
Yikes! We need LOTS of testing on all platforms. Especially of error
return values. I just discovered that mobile spec location auto and manual
tests have issues with location errors. Auto tests don't test for errors -
there is at least a note in the test code that we need to look into that.
And, the auto tests are expecting an error code in the fail function when
they should be expecting an error object. Not sure why running in the iOS
simulator isn't catching that? Maybe cause I don't bother to test location
in the simulator because I know it doesn't support location? Note to self
- simulator is a good way to catch errors for features it does not support.
I'm not saying not to tag but we really need a concentrated effort on
testing.
-becky
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Nope do it
>
> On 3/19/12 2:39 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
> >any objections?
>
>
Re: tag 1.6rc1 fri
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
Nope do it
On 3/19/12 2:39 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>any objections?