LucasHolmquist
On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Jukka,
Added the committers from the list plus any Apache members
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jukka Zitting
jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Shazron
CB-3188
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Anis KADRI anis.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
the access tag should be top-level (as a common practice) but it should
work anywayweird...
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Filip Maj f...@adobe.com wrote:
Bug, file that shizzle yo
On 4/18/13
Seems access tag does not work in top-level either.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michal Mocny mmo...@chromium.org wrote:
CB-3188
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Anis KADRI anis.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
the access tag should be top-level (as a common practice) but it should
work
LucasHolmquist added
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Lucas Holmquist lholm...@redhat.comwrote:
LucasHolmquist
On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Jukka,
Added the committers from the list plus any Apache members
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM,
I was just playing with plugman yesterday with the Facebook Connect plugin,
it did however install my access tags that were in the top-level:
https://github.com/phonegap/phonegap-facebook-plugin/blob/plugman-FB-SDK-3.2.1/plugin.xml#L12-L16
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Michal Mocny
Hey all,
We've been having conflicts with referencing the next version in the edge
documentation.
From now on, the edge documentation should reference the next version as
x.x.x.
On each release, the release script will find replace x.x.x with the
released version.
For example:
-
Cool, nice job brooks
On 4/19/13 10:53 AM, Michael Brooks mich...@michaelbrooks.ca wrote:
Hey all,
We've been having conflicts with referencing the next version in the edge
documentation.
From now on, the edge documentation should reference the next version as
x.x.x.
On each release, the
Very odd, I just tried using the exact same syntax and even moved the tag
to the same relative file location. Not working.
Shaz, are you using the future branch?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just playing with plugman yesterday with the Facebook
I like it.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Filip Maj f...@adobe.com wrote:
Cool, nice job brooks
On 4/19/13 10:53 AM, Michael Brooks mich...@michaelbrooks.ca wrote:
Hey all,
We've been having conflicts with referencing the next version in the edge
documentation.
From now on, the
I am, sorry, I should have said so.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Anis KADRI anis.ka...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe Shaz is using the future branch. The future branch is
mostly untested, partly broken and under heavy development right now. Are
you using the future branch Michal ?
Hey all,
I'm planning to change the way we version the Cordova CLI.
TL;DR
---
2.7.0+1.0.5 === Cordova 2.7.0 and npm module version 1.0.5
2.7.1+1.0.12 === Cordova 2.7.1 and npm module version 1.0.12
Current State
---
Today, the Cordova CLI uses a major.minor.patch version identifiers to
Rockin, love it
On 4/19/13 2:17 PM, Michael Brooks mich...@michaelbrooks.ca wrote:
Hey all,
I'm planning to change the way we version the Cordova CLI.
TL;DR
---
2.7.0+1.0.5 === Cordova 2.7.0 and npm module version 1.0.5
2.7.1+1.0.12 === Cordova 2.7.1 and npm module version 1.0.12
Probably a retag since we use the contents of VERSION to interpolate the
framework version string into the JS-only platforms' JS.
On 4/19/13 2:16 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey gang,
I noticed that the 2.7.0rc1 tag commit for Cordova JS sets the version to
just 2.7.0:
I don't get it. Why not independently version?
(I recognize we version lock currently.)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Filip Maj f...@adobe.com wrote:
Rockin, love it
On 4/19/13 2:17 PM, Michael Brooks mich...@michaelbrooks.ca wrote:
Hey all,
I'm planning to change the way we version the
Done and done.
On 19 April 2013 14:21, Filip Maj f...@adobe.com wrote:
Probably a retag since we use the contents of VERSION to interpolate the
framework version string into the JS-only platforms' JS.
On 4/19/13 2:16 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey gang,
I noticed that the
Cordova CLI has a version that is independent of the Cordova releases.
(Once we decouple the creating of projects from version locking.)
So I create a project today with Cordova CLI it would use the most
recent release. Lets pretend that's 2.7. Cool. A month later I create
a project with the CLI
Totally down with this Brian. However, it doesn't exist today and
realistically it wouldn't exist before 3.0.0.
My proposed versioning allows us have both today and allows us to
transition to an independent CLI version in the future.
Today, we can reliably track both the Cordova framework
Hey
I'm looking at CB-2962, and I'm not sure how we can resolve this one.
Should we intercept any XHR requests with a Basic Auth token, and set
it on the browser? I noticed that CordovaWebViewClient does have some
code to deal with this, but I'm confused as to how this works.
Any ideas?
Joe
It's not just Android, iOS as well:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2415
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Joe Bowser bows...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey
I'm looking at CB-2962, and I'm not sure how we can resolve this one.
Should we intercept any XHR requests with a Basic Auth token, and
Ya I couldn't find them either. My guess is that the Set VERSION to 2.7.0
commit was in a detached head state when pushed to the repo. I wasn't too
sure what was going on, so I decided to go with the flow.
On 19 April 2013 16:46, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at cordova-js:
Can you commit them to the two branches from your local? If not when we
generate the js off the branches it's not correct
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Ya I couldn't find them either. My guess is that the Set VERSION to 2.7.0
commit was in a detached head
You checked in merge conflicts. e.g.
+ HEAD
2.5.0
+===
+2.7.0rc1
+
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, it should be good to go now.
On 19 April 2013 16:59, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you commit them to the two branches from your local?
NOOO
On 19 April 2013 17:15, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
You checked in merge conflicts. e.g.
+ HEAD
2.5.0
+===
+2.7.0rc1
+
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, it should be good to go now.
On 19 April 2013 16:59, Shazron
Hurry! It's Friday.
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
NOOO
On 19 April 2013 17:15, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
You checked in merge conflicts. e.g.
+ HEAD
2.5.0
+===
+2.7.0rc1
+
On Fri, Apr 19,
Hey it's no so bad, just find the chevrons and pick the right section. If
you gtg I can take care of it
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Jesse purplecabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hurry! It's Friday.
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
rc1 tag is on master but not the 2.7.x branch
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey it's no so bad, just find the chevrons and pick the right section. If
you gtg I can take care of it
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Jesse
Ya...I just realised. Arg.
On 19 April 2013 17:35, Jesse purplecabb...@gmail.com wrote:
rc1 tag is on master but not the 2.7.x branch
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Shazron shaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey it's no so bad, just find the chevrons and pick
Getting merge conflicts! Seriously, WTF?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh turns out I just didn't push up the 2.7.x changes :)
Thought something crazier was going on. OK - I think it should be good now!
*crosses fingers*
On 19 April 2013 17:37, Tim
Okay, so are we good with 360bd3e65c33ce4f01e2efb82d641a565ef3c333 ?
I have tagged WP7+8
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Joe Bowser bows...@gmail.com wrote:
Getting merge conflicts! Seriously, WTF?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tim Kim timki...@gmail.com
I've re-tagged Android with the new JS.
WORST RELEASE PROCESS EVER!
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jesse purplecabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so are we good with 360bd3e65c33ce4f01e2efb82d641a565ef3c333 ?
I have tagged WP7+8
@purplecabbage
risingj.com
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM,
30 matches
Mail list logo
