On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I finally managed to reproduce the setup that Andrew finally has. The > multiple repositories thing is super frustrating, and I am not > convinced that these changes help the project, since none of them were > communicated. I still don't understand why these had to happen on the > 4.0.x branch and not on a topic branch on GitHub. > The changelog on github is here: https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commits/4.0.x I think the commit messages are pretty good and communicate what the commits contain fairly well. Of course, mine is a very biased opinion here. Here's the goals I've had with the changes I've made recently: 1. Make it possible to have multiple webviews in an app with separate configs 2. Delete @Deprecated things so as to not need a 5.0.x to do so 3. Refactor copy & pasted code between xwalkview & androidwebview 4. Shrink the API surface of CordovaWebView (less surface == more maintainable) I've also added the bridgeSecret thing (to master) for making the bridge more secure. This I emailed about & would still like it if someone else could audit it. > Even though everything works now, I still think we have a major > problem with patch bombing and a lack of communication. The solution > being proposed was "revert everything", and if I did do that today, I > would have reverted code just because it was patchbombed in. Perhaps > we should revert code that's patchbombed? I honestly would like to be > able to go out of 4G coverage without everything being rewritten "just > because". Can we agree to actually collaborate instead of trying to > win the race for most commits, especially since we know that when > Simon comes back, he's going to win it anyway. > I'm not asking that everything be discussed before being committed, > but if there are tons of commits (more than 20), it should be on its > own branch before it gets pushed and discussed. > So long as commit messages are good, and changes are reasonable & don't break things, then why extend the odds of merge conflicts? Many changes required changes to the xwalk engine plugin as well, and I think it would have been more work than its worth to have created multiple dependent topic branches on multiple repos that would have a bunch of merge conflicts to deal with, all to maintain the state of a pretty experimental branch. If you subscribe to changelog emails, you get an email for each one. I actually do read these, and I'd encourage others to as well. If there was a change I thought was reasonable, but you disagree, then let's discuss it. I think you'll find that at least most of the changes are pretty reasonable. > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > More communication is always better -- I feel that might be the > > missing piece here. > > > > Let's try to move on from this and discuss this in the call to solve > > this situation: > > 1. Identify what's broken and fix that, with verifying tests > > 2. Revert for now so others can continue, while trying to fix what's > > broken in the new patch (in a branch for merging later) > > 3. Another option(?) > > > > I would err on the side of more communication over less (Apache > > "Community over Code" etc). A massive patch integration without > > discussion imo is not pro-community. > > > > I may have missed it (apologies if I did) but the series of patches > > started July 3, 2014 and I did not see any discussion of it in dev@ > > prior to that. > > > > Shaz > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Let's discuss tonight, but it is actually pretty easy to revert things > >> without --force. "git revert" can do it, or "git checkout HASH . && git > >> commit --all -a" > >> > >> Also - what's broken? Just did a test compile with 4.0.x & > >> > https://github.com/clelland/cordova-crosswalk-engine#plugin_with_arm_binary > >> and it worked fine. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM, 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 > >>> >
