Re: Circular require()s

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

Now that 2.1 is off, I've reverted the revert, so the circular check is
back.


On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Fil, re-testing now.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > I've reverted the change and re-tagged JS.
> >
> > I would HIGHLY recommend rebuilding the JS and re-testing everything on
> > all platforms just in case.
> >
> > On 8/31/12 1:10 PM, "Michael Brooks" <mi...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>If the circular dependency issue is isolated to one or more commits, then
> >>you can revert those commits (basically an inverted cherry-pick - undoing
> >>the particular commit).
> >>
> >>On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can we cherry-pick the circular require commit out and run through the
> >>> motions? There are a lot of good commits that we should include ethat
> >>> follow it. Any volunteers?
> >>>
> >>> On 8/31/12 12:59 PM, "Gord Tanner" <go...@tinyhippos.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Know what
> >>> >
> >>> >+1 to rolling it back.
> >>> >
> >>> >Way to many things to test at this point to ensure we don't miss
> >>>anything.
> >>> >
> >>> >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >> These are usually easy to fix by moving one of the require()s one
> >>> >>nesting
> >>> >> deeper.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That said, it might be worth just rolling the CL back for now and
> >>>then
> >>> >> rolling it forward after the tagging.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Gord is this a showstopper?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 8/31/12 11:58 AM, "Shazron" <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >So, what does this mean. Should all platforms hold?
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> Oh balls. Just tagged 2.1.0rc2
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On 8/31/12 11:35 AM, "Gord Tanner" <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>>This is currently breaking tizen and File API's
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>Should we remove this and push to 2.2 to give people time to
> >>>clean
> >>> >>>this
> >>> >>> >>>up?
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Andrew Grieve
> >>> >>><ag...@chromium.org>
> >>> >>> >>>wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>> Done and done.
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cordova-js.git;a=co
> >>> >>> >>>>mm
> >>> >>> >>>>it;h=188232f42e60745c961363638560ad3c41b6590c
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Patrick Mueller
> >>> >>><pm...@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> >>>>wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Grieve
> >>> >>><ag...@google.com>
> >>> >>> >>>>>wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> > ...
> >>> >>> >>>>> > I think these restrictions are too hard to get right, and
> >>>that
> >>> >>>we
> >>> >>> >>>>>should
> >>> >>> >>>>> > just make require cycles an error. Objections?
> >>> >>> >>>>> >
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> +1, I think this should be containable for us.
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> --
> >>> >>> >>>>> Patrick Mueller
> >>> >>> >>>>> http://muellerware.org
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >--
> >>> >Gord Tanner
> >>> >Senior Developer / Code Poet
> >>> >tinyHippos Inc.
> >>> >@tinyhippos
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>