You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> on 2014/05/01 02:38:14 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Hello everyone!
Shall we move forward with 3.5.0 release?
Please list any issues that exist & reasons to postpone. I know both
windows platforms and amazon fireos both really want this release to get
out asap.
Proposed timeline:
- RC this Friday/next Monday (no vote required, cli published under rc tag)
- Final tag & vote either May 8 or May 12 (lets not release on friday).
I volunteer to be release master for this release.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Josh Soref <js...@blackberry.com> wrote:
> purplecabbage wrote:
>
> > I would like to see 3.5.0 ready to vote on late next week.
>
> I won¹t be around then (Passover).
>
>
> Bryan + I will try to ensure that 3.5 works nicely w/ BlackBerry 10 early
> next week (this week is overŠ).
>
> Hopefully someone can review the announce bits.
>
> My general requests:
> 1. Please spell brands correctly (Tizen, FirefoxOS, BlackBerry, iOS, Š)
> 2. Please `` commands, arguments, filenames, and file types
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Rodrigo Silveira <rs...@mozilla.com>.
I can help with testing Firefox OS. I assume I can't do much on the firefox os subtask[1] as a non-committer.
There are a couple of pull requests for Firefox OS that I'd love to see in the release ([2] & [3]). PR [4] would be amazing too, but might need some rework. I'm waiting on cordova-lib to show up in github to migrate a local change from CLI that is related to these others too.
None of this is release blocking though.
Rodrigo.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6593
[2] https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-contacts/pull/29
[3] https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-geolocation/pull/17
[4] https://github.com/apache/cordova-firefoxos/pull/7
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 3:01:49 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Releasing options for 3.5.0.
Option 1: Release like we always have.
* One zip containing zips of the platforms, js, docs, cli
Option 2: Break up platforms/tools/plugins
This is the option we are going towards with independent releases.
* Platforms go in the platforms directory
* Tools in the tools directory
* Plugins in the plugins directory
* where does cordova-js go? Tools directory? Since this will also be
released on npm, we need to release it on dist somewhere as well.
* do we need/want to release docs still? If yes, we should create a top
level docs directory
* cordova.io downloads section will need to reflect the change
You can see both option 1 & 2 at [1]
I personally like option 2 since this is the direction we are going towards
with independent releases. All the platforms will be released on npm once
the 3.5.0 vote concludes. I don't see much value in having one zip that has
zips of all of our platforms, cli, js + docs anymore.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dist/cordova/
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org> wrote:
> At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while sorting
> things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it would
> have to be to be in 3.5.0.
>
> (The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the
> same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but
> it's a bit more complicated than that now :( )
>
> For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until it's
> ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for one
> feature.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future
> > release.
> > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that
> this
> > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and
> > any
> > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads,
> sounds
> > > like it's not quite there yet.
> > >
> > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
> > > Monday?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for
> 3.5.0;
> > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> > > abstracting
> > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> > > non-static
> > > >> fields on interfaces...
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works,
> > then
> > > we
> > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet.
> > > I'll
> > > >> have to let you know later today.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Rodrigo Silveira <rs...@mozilla.com>.
Hi Steve,
Got it! We don't have anything platform pending that has to make this release then, the PR I mentioned for firefoxos is still being reviewed it seems. For the plugin changes I'll wait to do the nagging when plugin releases is nearer :).
Let me know how I can help with the release.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Gill" <st...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 11:53:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
>
> lib directory sounds like a good idea for cordova-lib + cordova-js.
>
> I had the same thought about RC's last week. I chatted with Shaz about it
> and he seemed to agree as well. Instead of tagging with "rc1", we just tag
> the version it is (3.5.0). After the initial tag, people test. If errors
> are found and need to be fixed, we can just retag. This will save us time
> when it comes to releasing.
>
> We will still release an RC for the CLI that points to the new platform
> tags.
>
> In terms of voting, one thread or many threads don't matter to me. CLI
> release would have to wait until all of the platform votes finish though.
> If one platform vote fails, the cli vote would fail.
>
> Rodrigo, thanks for stepping up to help! We aren't releasing plugins with
> this release, but we can do a plugins release shortly after. Let me know
> when you want to get that firefoxos pull request merged in.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>.
lib directory sounds like a good idea for cordova-lib + cordova-js.
I had the same thought about RC's last week. I chatted with Shaz about it
and he seemed to agree as well. Instead of tagging with "rc1", we just tag
the version it is (3.5.0). After the initial tag, people test. If errors
are found and need to be fixed, we can just retag. This will save us time
when it comes to releasing.
We will still release an RC for the CLI that points to the new platform
tags.
In terms of voting, one thread or many threads don't matter to me. CLI
release would have to wait until all of the platform votes finish though.
If one platform vote fails, the cli vote would fail.
Rodrigo, thanks for stepping up to help! We aren't releasing plugins with
this release, but we can do a plugins release shortly after. Let me know
when you want to get that firefoxos pull request merged in.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Option 2 makes sense to me.
> - Maybe let's make a lib/ directory, and cordova-js and cordova-lib can go
> there?
> - I don't think we need to put this on dist/ until we start to use it via
> npm (I know it's there, but it's not used)
> - I don't think we should "release docs". Don't want to have to vote every
> time we make a tweak to them.
>
> Also - thanks Steve for updating
>
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/blob/master/docs/cadence-release-process.md(everyone
> - have a look!)
> Some further thoughts on changes:
> - Should we do away with adding "rc1" to RCs? Presumably the existence of
> the release branch should serve the purpose os people being able to test
> the right thing. Once it's tested & it's vote time, we can't have "rc" in
> the version.
> - Voting might go smoother if we vote on platforms separately. E.g. I
> wouldn't be willing to vote platforms that I've never touched.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Releasing options for 3.5.0.
> >
> > Option 1: Release like we always have.
> > * One zip containing zips of the platforms, js, docs, cli
> >
> > Option 2: Break up platforms/tools/plugins
> > This is the option we are going towards with independent releases.
> > * Platforms go in the platforms directory
> > * Tools in the tools directory
> > * Plugins in the plugins directory
> > * where does cordova-js go? Tools directory? Since this will also be
> > released on npm, we need to release it on dist somewhere as well.
> > * do we need/want to release docs still? If yes, we should create a top
> > level docs directory
> > * cordova.io downloads section will need to reflect the change
> >
> > You can see both option 1 & 2 at [1]
> >
> > I personally like option 2 since this is the direction we are going
> towards
> > with independent releases. All the platforms will be released on npm once
> > the 3.5.0 vote concludes. I don't see much value in having one zip that
> has
> > zips of all of our platforms, cli, js + docs anymore.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dist/cordova/
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while
> > sorting
> > > things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it
> > would
> > > have to be to be in 3.5.0.
> > >
> > > (The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly*
> the
> > > same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues,
> but
> > > it's a bit more complicated than that now :( )
> > >
> > > For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until
> > it's
> > > ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for
> > one
> > > feature.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a
> > future
> > > > release.
> > > > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that
> > > this
> > > > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well,
> > and
> > > > any
> > > > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads,
> > > sounds
> > > > > like it's not quite there yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you
> till
> > > > > Monday?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <
> > iclelland@chromium.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for
> > > 3.5.0;
> > > > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> > > > > abstracting
> > > > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> > > > > non-static
> > > > > >> fields on interfaces...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it
> works,
> > > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident
> > yet.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > >> have to let you know later today.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Marcel Kinard <cm...@gmail.com>.
On May 5, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Option 2 makes sense to me.
Same here.
> - I don't think we should "release docs". Don't want to have to vote every
> time we make a tweak to them.
I'm a bit torn on this one. I agree that voting would be tedious, and the docs are already generated and available online. But on the other hand, the docs are an output of the project, and in theory should be as important as the code. Given that we don't change old docs very often at all, how about if we publish the docs in source form, but only for the current version (don't include any of the old versions, or edge: just 3.5.0 in this case). Effectively that means we release one version of the docs at a time, and they don't get re-released unless there is an extraordinary situation. Is this a decent compromise? Would it make sense to also publish the generated docs (just that version) in the same zip as a convenience?
> - Should we do away with adding "rc1" to RCs? Presumably the existence of
> the release branch should serve the purpose os people being able to test
> the right thing. Once it's tested & it's vote time, we can't have "rc" in
> the version.
Yeah, stripping the "rc1" would technically seem to invalidate the vote because a new artifact would be generated, and there would be a new hash. How about if the contents of the zip don't have "rc1", but the filename does include the string "rc1"? So then promotion to dist is a move and a rename, but the contents stay the same.
> - Voting might go smoother if we vote on platforms separately. E.g. I
> wouldn't be willing to vote platforms that I've never touched.
Yes. I can run "coho verify-archive" easy enough, but I'll probably do a functional test only of my primary platform (android).
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>.
Option 2 makes sense to me.
- Maybe let's make a lib/ directory, and cordova-js and cordova-lib can go
there?
- I don't think we need to put this on dist/ until we start to use it via
npm (I know it's there, but it's not used)
- I don't think we should "release docs". Don't want to have to vote every
time we make a tweak to them.
Also - thanks Steve for updating
https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/blob/master/docs/cadence-release-process.md(everyone
- have a look!)
Some further thoughts on changes:
- Should we do away with adding "rc1" to RCs? Presumably the existence of
the release branch should serve the purpose os people being able to test
the right thing. Once it's tested & it's vote time, we can't have "rc" in
the version.
- Voting might go smoother if we vote on platforms separately. E.g. I
wouldn't be willing to vote platforms that I've never touched.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Releasing options for 3.5.0.
>
> Option 1: Release like we always have.
> * One zip containing zips of the platforms, js, docs, cli
>
> Option 2: Break up platforms/tools/plugins
> This is the option we are going towards with independent releases.
> * Platforms go in the platforms directory
> * Tools in the tools directory
> * Plugins in the plugins directory
> * where does cordova-js go? Tools directory? Since this will also be
> released on npm, we need to release it on dist somewhere as well.
> * do we need/want to release docs still? If yes, we should create a top
> level docs directory
> * cordova.io downloads section will need to reflect the change
>
> You can see both option 1 & 2 at [1]
>
> I personally like option 2 since this is the direction we are going towards
> with independent releases. All the platforms will be released on npm once
> the 3.5.0 vote concludes. I don't see much value in having one zip that has
> zips of all of our platforms, cli, js + docs anymore.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dist/cordova/
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while
> sorting
> > things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it
> would
> > have to be to be in 3.5.0.
> >
> > (The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the
> > same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but
> > it's a bit more complicated than that now :( )
> >
> > For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until
> it's
> > ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for
> one
> > feature.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a
> future
> > > release.
> > > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that
> > this
> > > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well,
> and
> > > any
> > > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads,
> > sounds
> > > > like it's not quite there yet.
> > > >
> > > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
> > > > Monday?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <
> iclelland@chromium.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for
> > 3.5.0;
> > > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> > > > abstracting
> > > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> > > > non-static
> > > > >> fields on interfaces...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works,
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident
> yet.
> > > > I'll
> > > > >> have to let you know later today.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>.
Releasing options for 3.5.0.
Option 1: Release like we always have.
* One zip containing zips of the platforms, js, docs, cli
Option 2: Break up platforms/tools/plugins
This is the option we are going towards with independent releases.
* Platforms go in the platforms directory
* Tools in the tools directory
* Plugins in the plugins directory
* where does cordova-js go? Tools directory? Since this will also be
released on npm, we need to release it on dist somewhere as well.
* do we need/want to release docs still? If yes, we should create a top
level docs directory
* cordova.io downloads section will need to reflect the change
You can see both option 1 & 2 at [1]
I personally like option 2 since this is the direction we are going towards
with independent releases. All the platforms will be released on npm once
the 3.5.0 vote concludes. I don't see much value in having one zip that has
zips of all of our platforms, cli, js + docs anymore.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dist/cordova/
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org> wrote:
> At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while sorting
> things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it would
> have to be to be in 3.5.0.
>
> (The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the
> same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but
> it's a bit more complicated than that now :( )
>
> For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until it's
> ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for one
> feature.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future
> > release.
> > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that
> this
> > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and
> > any
> > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads,
> sounds
> > > like it's not quite there yet.
> > >
> > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
> > > Monday?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for
> 3.5.0;
> > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> > > abstracting
> > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> > > non-static
> > > >> fields on interfaces...
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works,
> > then
> > > we
> > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet.
> > > I'll
> > > >> have to let you know later today.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>.
At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while sorting
things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it would
have to be to be in 3.5.0.
(The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the
same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but
it's a bit more complicated than that now :( )
For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until it's
ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for one
feature.
Ian
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future
> release.
> On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that this
> > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and
> any
> > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, sounds
> > like it's not quite there yet.
> >
> > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
> > Monday?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
> > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> > abstracting
> > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> > >>
> > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> > non-static
> > >> fields on interfaces...
> > >>
> > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works,
> then
> > we
> > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet.
> > I'll
> > >> have to let you know later today.
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>.
I have created the master release issue at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6586
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future
> release.
> On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that this
>> capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and any
>> breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, sounds
>> like it's not quite there yet.
>>
>> On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
>> Monday?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
>> >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
>> abstracting
>> >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
>> >>
>> >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
>> non-static
>> >> fields on interfaces...
>> >>
>> >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works,
>> then we
>> >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet.
>> I'll
>> >> have to let you know later today.
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future
release.
On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <cm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that this
> capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and any
> breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, sounds
> like it's not quite there yet.
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till
> Monday?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
> >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by
> abstracting
> >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
> >>
> >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or
> non-static
> >> fields on interfaces...
> >>
> >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, then
> we
> >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet.
> I'll
> >> have to let you know later today.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Marcel Kinard <cm...@gmail.com>.
Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that this capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and any breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, sounds like it's not quite there yet.
On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till Monday?
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
>> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by abstracting
>> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
>>
>> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or non-static
>> fields on interfaces...
>>
>> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, then we
>> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet. I'll
>> have to let you know later today.
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>.
Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till Monday?
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by abstracting
> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
>
> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or non-static
> fields on interfaces...
>
> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, then we
> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet. I'll
> have to let you know later today.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Steven. Lets see what Joe/Ian say about cordova-android webview
> > support.
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone!
> > >
> > > Shall we move forward with 3.5.0 release?
> > >
> > > Please list any issues that exist & reasons to postpone. I know both
> > > windows platforms and amazon fireos both really want this release to
> get
> > > out asap.
> > >
> > > Proposed timeline:
> > > - RC this Friday/next Monday (no vote required, cli published under rc
> > tag)
> > > - Final tag & vote either May 8 or May 12 (lets not release on friday).
> > >
> > > I volunteer to be release master for this release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Josh Soref <js...@blackberry.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > purplecabbage wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to see 3.5.0 ready to vote on late next week.
> > > >
> > > > I won¹t be around then (Passover).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bryan + I will try to ensure that 3.5 works nicely w/ BlackBerry 10
> > early
> > > > next week (this week is overŠ).
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully someone can review the announce bits.
> > > >
> > > > My general requests:
> > > > 1. Please spell brands correctly (Tizen, FirefoxOS, BlackBerry, iOS,
> Š)
> > > > 2. Please `` commands, arguments, filenames, and file types
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>.
Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0;
there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by abstracting
CordovaWebView from a class into an interface.
/me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or non-static
fields on interfaces...
I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, then we
might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet. I'll
have to let you know later today.
Ian
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Thanks Steven. Lets see what Joe/Ian say about cordova-android webview
> support.
>
> -Michal
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone!
> >
> > Shall we move forward with 3.5.0 release?
> >
> > Please list any issues that exist & reasons to postpone. I know both
> > windows platforms and amazon fireos both really want this release to get
> > out asap.
> >
> > Proposed timeline:
> > - RC this Friday/next Monday (no vote required, cli published under rc
> tag)
> > - Final tag & vote either May 8 or May 12 (lets not release on friday).
> >
> > I volunteer to be release master for this release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Josh Soref <js...@blackberry.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > purplecabbage wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to see 3.5.0 ready to vote on late next week.
> > >
> > > I won¹t be around then (Passover).
> > >
> > >
> > > Bryan + I will try to ensure that 3.5 works nicely w/ BlackBerry 10
> early
> > > next week (this week is overŠ).
> > >
> > > Hopefully someone can review the announce bits.
> > >
> > > My general requests:
> > > 1. Please spell brands correctly (Tizen, FirefoxOS, BlackBerry, iOS, Š)
> > > 2. Please `` commands, arguments, filenames, and file types
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release 3.5.0
Posted by Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>.
Thanks Steven. Lets see what Joe/Ian say about cordova-android webview
support.
-Michal
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Shall we move forward with 3.5.0 release?
>
> Please list any issues that exist & reasons to postpone. I know both
> windows platforms and amazon fireos both really want this release to get
> out asap.
>
> Proposed timeline:
> - RC this Friday/next Monday (no vote required, cli published under rc tag)
> - Final tag & vote either May 8 or May 12 (lets not release on friday).
>
> I volunteer to be release master for this release.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Josh Soref <js...@blackberry.com> wrote:
>
> > purplecabbage wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to see 3.5.0 ready to vote on late next week.
> >
> > I won¹t be around then (Passover).
> >
> >
> > Bryan + I will try to ensure that 3.5 works nicely w/ BlackBerry 10 early
> > next week (this week is overŠ).
> >
> > Hopefully someone can review the announce bits.
> >
> > My general requests:
> > 1. Please spell brands correctly (Tizen, FirefoxOS, BlackBerry, iOS, Š)
> > 2. Please `` commands, arguments, filenames, and file types
> >
> >
>