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 <bows...@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 <agri...@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 <bows...@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 <agri...@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 <stevengil...@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 <bows...@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 < > agri...@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 <bows...@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 < > >> agri...@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 < > bows...@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 < > >> >> agri...@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 < > >> bows...@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 < > >> >> > >> agri...@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 < > >> f...@adobe.com> > >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Sgtm! > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 6/21/13 6:27 PM, "Steven Gill" < > >> stevengil...@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. > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
