cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:42:44 GMT
Couldn't find the thread, but I also thought there we had discussed having
the 3.0 release == moving to CLI & having plugins separated.

I know PhoneGap Day is in July, and I agree 3.0 for PGD is a great goal,
but a major version number bump shouldn't indicate that time has elapsed.
There should be some excitement behind it! :)


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> No no. You must be mistaking us w/ the node project. We're shipping 3
> in July yo.
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Braden Shepherdson
> <braden@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it
> > comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8
> > followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about?
> >
> > Braden
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >> To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're
> >> working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not
> >> build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time.
> >> Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
> braden@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving
> to
> >> > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and
> the
> >> > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into
> >> plugins
> >> > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps
> don't
> >> > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need.
> >> >
> >> > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep
> >> > versioning them to the tools.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Offline happens!
> >> >>
> >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition
to
> >> >> that thinking will be the trick.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the
> >> version
> >> >> of
> >> >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default
which
> >> can
> >> >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not
> sure
> >> that
> >> >> > every app you create should by default include those.  You are
> right,
> >> >> this
> >> >> > is worthy of a longer discussion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (p.s. who goes offline?)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Michal
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Good question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload
w/
> >> core
> >> >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to
minimize
> >> >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for
us to
> >> >> >> default to none.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but
thats
> open
> >> >> too.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI
but still
> >> work
> >> >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins?
Are you
> >> >> suggesting
> >> >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy
load, and
> cache
> >> so
> >> >> >> >> offline works.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner <
> gtanner@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for
our cli, any
> idea
> >> what
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> size of all the platforms are?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson
<
> >> braden@chromium.org
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has
some advantages as
> >> you
> >> >> >> wrote.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to
add a platform
> that's
> >> >> running
> >> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described
in my feature
> >> request
> >> >> in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> doc.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform
add android
> >> >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android   where that
local directory
> can
> >> >> have
> >> >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Braden
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux
<b@brian.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova
into the npm
> package
> >> for
> >> >> >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the
two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x
> ===
> >> >> >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest).
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> We did this because:
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> - has to work offline
> >> >> >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development
> >> >> >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real
version of Cordova
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code
to do that isn't
> >> really a
> >> >> >> huge
> >> >> >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little
that isn't already
> >> >> achieved
> >> >> >> by
> >> >> >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware
the current can be
> >> >> improved
> >> >> >> but
> >> >> >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple
and plugin
> >> integration.
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message