I'd consider 4.0 an in progress release branch. A topic might be remove-get-plugin, for example.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > May we keep these topics within existing email threads? Some of these > topics have been addressed elsewhere and the conversation is forking. > > RE: topic branches -- thats what 4.0.x is, no? I guess as more people > start to actually consume it, we should start to care more about compat. > We didn't care about making breaking changes in the first weeks, and now > its the end of the world (okay I'm exaggerating here, just trying to > counterbalance the original tone ;) > > Also, 4.0.x also doesn't exactly have a well defined set of things to test > against, so we should discuss that tonight. I think its hard to include > other peoples demos which you don't know exist in that set.. > > -Michal > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > 1. patch bombing is never ok > > 2. topic branches people: its not hard > > 3. testing: this is why you do it > > > > +1 revert. back and forth justifications have been going on for weeks, > > joe's work is totally borked and blocked which is unfair. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Due to the recent changes, I propose that we revert everything back to > > > a prior commit on this branch. Given that we use the interfaces to > > > define the API for the ThirdParty WebViews used by Crosswalk and > > > others, the irony of reverting is should be clear. The fact is that > > > we can't have people dumping hundreds of commits that totally destroy > > > months of work that we've done, including all the consensus-building > > > that was done. This totally undermines the feeling that everyone is > > > contributing in good faith. > > > > > > Honestly, if I even remotely tried to do the same thing, I know that > > > many people on this project would have major objections to this, so I > > > don't know why people are being silent about this now. We can't have > > > hundreds of commits just dumped into any branch of the ASF repos, > > > since we have no easy way to do a revert of this. We have no --force, > > > and I'm probably going to have to fork and delete the 4.0.x branch. > > > I'm going to do this after the conference call, but I'm extremely > > > upset about the recent changes. > > > > > > We can't just say "shit will be broken anyway" and use it as an excuse > > > to break other people's work. I honestly don't know what to say about > > > this at this point, since we've never had to do something like this > > > before. I'm extremely frustrated at the fact that I've been ignored > > > every time I've raised concerns on this list and that some of us are > > > held to higher standards than others. > > > > > > I really hope we can talk about this on the call, because this is > > > beyond unacceptable. I'm not sure what was supposed to be > > > accomplished, and why talking about features is some sort of unknown > > > barrier that we're trying to avoid. At this point, there's no way we > > > could even remotely vote on a major release. > > > > > > How can we work past this so that we can actually work on this project > > > again? > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >
