On Jul 15, 2014 5:43 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > 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. >
They don't. There aren't issues attached. These are often one line. Why can't we use JIRA for this? > 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 Cool. Is there an issue in JIRA? > 2. Delete @Deprecated things so as to not need a 5.0.x to do so Cool, is this tracked anywhere else? > 3. Refactor copy & pasted code between xwalkview & androidwebview Again, is this in JIRA? > 4. Shrink the API surface of CordovaWebView (less surface == more > maintainable) > This isn't cool. This should have been discussed more. What will this break? > 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. > On dev or private? Should it be discussed here? > > > > > 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? > Because Community > Code, and your opinion about commit messages is subjective. If you used JIRA, I could have caught up instead of a one-line commit. > 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. > JIRA is where this should have been done. I don't just create issues just for the sake of creating them. If I got a JIRA issue "I might have broke things, go check", I would go check. > 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. > Why can't we use JIRA to track issues and changes like this? I can read a changelog on gitweb just as easily as on my Gmail. > > > > > 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 > > >>> > >
