http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/4/40057/2482831-archer-1-phrasing.jpg Simon Mac Donald http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, that's pretty damn dishonest. I did pull and see that it was > retagged like you said it was yesterday. I think blaming me for using > the old tag back before you retagged is a pretty crap thing to do. > > Also, Why in the hell are we storing the version in > CordovaWebView.java? Does it need to be there? I thought that we've > gone past having to hardcode Android versions in Java files. > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: >> The extra hash on the end was the reason for the re-tag of cordova-js. Maybe >> you forgot to "git pull" and still have your cordova-js at the previous tag? >> >> Coho's not involved in any of that. The code is in >> cordova-js/build/packager.js >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> After I let Andrew do the tagging of RC1, I noticed something that >>> looks broken by the fact that I can't reproduce this result without >>> using coho, and I can't find in the source where coho messes with the >>> build labels. >>> >>> Now, as well all know, the JS is generated by Grunt. Assuming that >>> we're going to be building off the same branch for the JS, we should >>> all be getting the same JS by doing this: >>> >>> git checkout 3.1.0-rc1 >>> grunt >>> >>> That produces a JS file with this header: >>> 3.1.0-rc1-0-g0d70465 >>> >>> However, when you look at the JS checked into Android, it's simply just >>> this: >>> 3.1.0-rc1 >>> >>> Now, they're the same, but when we remove the hash from the build, we >>> have to believe that it's the same thing. What's worse, I can't see >>> where in coho that we delete the hash from the build label. >>> >>> I know that this was cited as one of the things that I was doing wrong >>> with the release process, but I have no idea why it's wrong to have >>> the hash in the header of the JS, since this is what you get when >>> manually generate the JS from the tag that is on the CordovaJS >>> repository. I think that this process isn't transparent, and I can't >>> find anywhere in the coho command that messes with this. >>> >>> Anyone know why one is correct, and one is wrong? This seems pretty >>> subjective. >>> >>> Joe >> >>
