On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Andrew Grieve agri...@chromium.org wrote:
Good call here. I should have made JIRAs for a bunch of these. I've now
done so retroactively.
Watching this, I very much agree that if Jira issues were created before the
commit and included in the commit message, that
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Marcel Kinard cmarc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Andrew Grieve agri...@chromium.org wrote:
Good call here. I should have made JIRAs for a bunch of these. I've now
done so retroactively.
Watching this, I very much agree that if Jira issues
Good call here. I should have made JIRAs for a bunch of these. I've now
done so retroactively.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Joe Bowser bows...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014 5:43 PM, Andrew Grieve agri...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Joe Bowser
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
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
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
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
For the sake of the commit history, I would prefer to revert, either with a
push -f or a new branch (4.0.y?) rather than push a negative commit onto
the existing branch.
Topic branches would have worked well in this case, I'm sure. Having an
api-sanity branch and/or a multi-webview branch from
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
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
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?
What's the topic? 4.0.x is a
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
We could revert, but I'd really like to know what's broken first? I've been
making sure mobilespec has been green all along, and ever since Joe pointed
the junit tests out to me, I've been making sure they compile and pass (at
least the ones that pass on master anyways) as well. For demoing
On Jul 15, 2014 5:09 PM, Andrew Grieve agri...@chromium.org wrote:
We could revert, but I'd really like to know what's broken first? I've
been
making sure mobilespec has been green all along, and ever since Joe
pointed
the junit tests out to me, I've been making sure they compile and pass (at
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
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
I'm new here but I agree with Joe that most/all commits should have a
corresponding item in JIRA. The mailing list isn't enough, as it's really
hard to track things down that way. With so many people contributing, I
think it's a necessity to make sure it's logged in JIRA.
Marc
On Tue, Jul 15,
17 matches
Mail list logo
