Sorry to dump another large email on the list, but I'm hoping this one is
at least less controversial :). I wrote up a plan for moving module->symbol
mapping out of common.js & platform.js and into individual plugins.
If you have feedback/comments, let me know.
* Goals:
- Change from listing
This all seems reasonable. Shall we start a branch?
On 1/15/13 2:47 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote:
>Sorry to dump another large email on the list, but I'm hoping this one is
>at least less controversial :). I wrote up a plan for moving
>module->symbol
>mapping out of common.js & platform.js and into
Branch started!
I've completed steps 1 & 2.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-js.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/symbolmapping
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Filip Maj wrote:
> This all seems reasonable. Shall we start a branch?
>
> On 1/15/13 2:47 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote:
>
Pushed up the change with the File plugin being registered in this new way.
Please let me know if you have concerns about it, since the next step is
moving over other plugin APIs, which is boring work :P.
Also, let's move any discussion into the JIRA issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB
This is now finished in the branch. There is now *no* plugin logic left in
common.js, nor in any platform.js files.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-js.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/symbolmapping
There is one exception, and that's things like the "app" plugin, where it's
not really
I've just merged in most of the changes for this (CB-2227). Again, the goal
here was to move all plugin-specific logic out of common files. It's not
the end-game solution, but a step in the right direction.
There are still some changes left on the symbolmapping branch that affect
windows & webos.
Okay, I've interpreted the silence as a "just go ahead and merge it and
people will complain if it's broken".
Seeing as we've now cut the next branch, I figured it was a good time to
merge these remaining changes in. So, I did. Please let me know if symbols
aren't working.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 a
Andrew did you test it on a device? Don't think "hey guys can you test my
changes" is a sustainable approach
On 2/20/13 12:19 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote:
>Okay, I've interpreted the silence as a "just go ahead and merge it and
>people will complain if it's broken".
>
>Seeing as we've now cut the
Agreed. Please take responsibility and test your code on devices (ideally
not simulators).
If your change impacts multiple platforms, have it tested on those before
pushing to master.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Filip Maj wrote:
> Andrew did you test it on a device? Don't think "hey guys
I agree with your sentiments, but I think it's impractical in practice. We
have ~11 platforms, and any change to common js affects them all.
In this case, I would need to learn how to build & run on webos, tizen, wp7
and windowphone, as well as buying the required hardware to do so. A tall
order f
Knowing the implication of your changes is pretty critical.
IMHO everyone who commits to the generic portions of cordova-js should be
prepared to at least smoke test in WP7or8, Android, iOS, and BB. Or at a
bare minimum have extreme confidence that your change will not affect them.
On Wed, Feb 20
>
> If the "can you guys test my changes" answer is "no", then it'd be great to
> hear a "no" instead of 8 days of silence. That said, I think we'd be able
> to move faster if we just took some time to review/test each others'
> changes when necessary. We do this when processing pull requests from
Agree with this. Sending out testing requests is fine, invariably not
everyone has a device for every platform. That said, this does not
exonerate anyone from not testing.
So in terms of the symbol mapping stuff, my question still stands: did you
test it on a device? If so, which device? Based on
Good call Mike. Moving this sort of stuff to JIRA (and bringing back to
list when necessary) makes a lot of sense.
On 2/20/13 1:27 PM, "Michael Brooks" wrote:
>>
>> If the "can you guys test my changes" answer is "no", then it'd be
>>great to
>> hear a "no" instead of 8 days of silence. That sai
I'm trying to imagine what extreem confidence looks like. Flying squirrel suit?
At any rate, hitting iOS, Android, BB, and WP is the min we tend to
test against..
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jesse wrote:
> Knowing the implication of your changes is pretty critical.
> IMHO everyone who commi
Agree with where this conversation is going. I do think a "call to action"
for review is important (esp given the number of platforms) and perhaps
JIRA isn't the absolute worst way to do it ;)
Another question: Are there plans to expand CI to other platforms? Support
requesting tests for a remot
Agree this sort of thing should live in Jira as sub tasks for ppl to
test. (And yup the CI should help in the future.)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Michal Mocny wrote:
> Agree with where this conversation is going. I do think a "call to action"
> for review is important (esp given the number
Recap:
I tested the common changes against iOS & Android and checked them in. I
also checked in the blackberry ones, since they contain better test
coverage in cordova-js than other platforms.
I then emailed out asking if anyone could test the remaining changes on the
branch against WP and webos.
Sounds awesome Andrew, thanks for the concise recap.
I agree, JIRA isn't the ideal solution when considering today's options
around code conversation, but it's what we have as an Apache project. C'est
le vie.
Regardless, if you need a platform to do a task, then JIRA is the answer.
If you need to
Hope the conclusions in this thread are satisfactory.
Andrew, I apologize for the tense tone in my emails yesterday. I should
have been more chill about it.
On 2/20/13 7:52 PM, "Michael Brooks" wrote:
>Sounds awesome Andrew, thanks for the concise recap.
>
>I agree, JIRA isn't the ideal solutio
I think so! Thanks everyone for working through this with me.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Filip Maj wrote:
> Hope the conclusions in this thread are satisfactory.
>
> Andrew, I apologize for the tense tone in my emails yesterday. I should
> have been more chill about it.
>
> On 2/20/13 7:5
I also think Fil should be more chill ;)
Just kidding, obviously the conclusions are satisfactory. Clearly, writing
is hard.
-Michal
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote:
> I think so! Thanks everyone for working through this with me.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Fi
22 matches
Mail list logo
