cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: New directory structure in cordova-cli's future branch
Date Thu, 23 May 2013 16:22:06 GMT
Brian,
I do not really understand your previous point, but I'll take a stab.

First some clarification:  I think there are two logical "roots", (1) the
root of your web app (holds merges/ and www/ and maybe more), and (2) the
root of your cordova workspace (holds platforms/ plugins/ and maybe more).

With the app/ folder, (1) is a subdirectory (2).  With the current
situation, they overlap inside the same folder.

I think it should be a goal to version control, share, and perhaps bundle
auxiliary resources with app/'s.
I think it should also be a goal to not limit the future structure of the
cordova workspace (ie, build artifacts).

The current situation makes these goals harder.

As one data point, our team here has a workflow where we share several apps
(containing only the contents(2)), and we share the common plugins we work
on.
The contents of (1) are never committed, shared, etc, and are just
recreated on a regular basis as cordova versions change and as we test for
different platforms.  Sidenote: yes, I have multiple different cordova
workspaces pointing to one common app to test with different versions.
 This is a bit of a cordova-developer necessity, but it would be
interesting if external devs could trial out new cordova releases on the
side, trivially..


So, like you Brian, we are just trying to get all the requirements/wishes
on the table so we can make a conscious decision here.  It looks like you
are not seeing sufficient motivation for making the change, and we are not
seeing any reason to not make it.

Another observation: the transition path even easier than we have outlined
above.

If your existing project is:
- app_name/
 - platforms/
 - plugins/
 - www/
 - merges/

All you need to do is rm -rf platforms/ plugins/ www/config.xml -- which
you need to do anyway to upgrade to 3.0 -- create a new config.xml at the
root and you now have a shareable app, and you can create as many cordova
different workspaces using it as you want.

-Michal


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> Not buying that either. The `./app` directory lives in the root so
> everything will have to change when we hit the reality you describe
> where `./app` IS the root.
>
> What you are really saying this is a transition step until such time
> as `./app` becomes top level and things return to the same as they are
> today but we do not require native bits to be revisioned. Essentially
> this is an aesthetic forcing function to get back to the original
> structure. =P
>
> This is a very complicated way to achieve the goal of native bits
> being build artifacts. A goal I share, many do, and I think we can
> achieve it by NOT breaking things today.
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > cd app
> > git init
> >
> > Now my app directory - everything that makes this app mine and isn't
> just a
> > cordova-cli artifact - is version controlled. I can easily check out a
> new
> > copy with a cordova create ...; rm -rf app; git clone https://
> .../myrepo.git
> > app
> >
> > Once we have app-level dependencies (which is planned regardless), I can
> > add cordova fetch-deps or whatever we decide the command should be, and
> now
> > my app is fully set up. No need to juggle .gitignore or anything else.
> It's
> > hardly a killer feature, but I think it is an improvement.
> >
> > Michal asked what change we would regret more a year from now. I think
> this
> > style makes the separation of CLI artifacts and my app more clear, and if
> > we add more pieces to either it won't require changing people's
> .gitignore
> > files or knowing about the architecture.
> >
> > Braden
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >> I want to be very clear that my tone here is emotionless! I'm totally
> >> indifferent.
> >>
> >> Now, please explain: how is a new directory make version control
> >> easier? I don't buy it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
> braden@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The change is not purely aesthetic; it means that the "my app"
> portions
> >> of
> >> > the structure are now contained in a single directory, and easier to
> >> > version control.
> >> >
> >> > This change gets more expensive every day. If we're ever going to do
> it,
> >> it
> >> > should be done now, I believe.
> >> >
> >> > It seems like the (not universally supported) consensus from the first
> >> pass
> >> > at this thread was to keep the app/ dir but have automatic detection
> and
> >> > ask-then-automatic conversion.
> >> >
> >> > If that approach is still acceptable, I will implement that support
> today
> >> > before we tag CLI for 2.8.
> >> >
> >> > Braden
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Fil, good summary, thanks for that.  I also agree with your proposal.
> >> >>  Would it be possible to just support both options starting now, and
> >> >> "deprecate" www/ at the top level in 3.0?
> >> >>
> >> >> Brian, this isn't just aesthetics, but its true that either option
> can,
> >> >> with varying difficulty, be made to work for all use cases.
> >> >>
> >> >> Migration path is trivial but will be paid by all users, still,
> >> workflows
> >> >> will change completely with 3.0 anyway, this being the least of the
> >> >> changes.  Which decision is more likely to be regretted a year from
> now?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Michal
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I don't really think this directory change is a big deal. We break
> >> things
> >> >> > in almost every release (e.g. loading pages of http), yet we're
> >> having so
> >> >> > much debate over alpha tool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The migration path is: mkdir app && git mv www merges app && git mv
> >> >> > app/www/config.xml app
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think the least amount of work here is to just console.log an
> error
> >> >> > message with this command if the app/ directory is not found.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Tommy-Carlos Williams
> >> >> > <tommy@devgeeks.org>wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Is it bad that I both agree vehemently with Brian's calling it
> not
> >> >> > > beneficial enough to justify, but also really really like the
> >> proposed
> >> >> > > structure better that the current one? hehe.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > *so… conflicted...*
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > - tommy
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On 23/05/2013, at 7:35 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > There are two paths. I argue there is no functional benefit and
> >> that
> >> >> > > > this change is purely aesthetic. Aesthetics are important but
> I'd
> >> >> > > > argue folder structure is the last part of the developer
> >> aesthetics
> >> >> we
> >> >> > > > should worry about and especially not beneficial enough to
> >> justify a
> >> >> > > > breaking change.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Today:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > ./
> >> >> > > > |- merges/
> >> >> > > > |- platforms/
> >> >> > > > |- plugins/
> >> >> > > > '- www/
> >> >> > > >    |- index.html
> >> >> > > >    '- config.xml
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Proposed:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > ./
> >> >> > > > |- platforms/
> >> >> > > > |- plugins/
> >> >> > > > '- app/
> >> >> > > >    |- merges/
> >> >> > > >    |- www/
> >> >> > > >    |       '- index.html
> >> >> > > >    '- config.xml
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> I'm reviving this discussion re: additional app/ folder in the
> >> >> > > >> cli-generated project structure.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> To recap, there were two main discussions:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> A)
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache.markmail.org/thread/syo24cwvhpkxqfdm#query:+page:1+mid:j76xli
> >> >> > > >> hsfjmvwtoi+state:results
> >> >> > > >> B)
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cordova.apache.org/msg05775.html
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Arguments for moving to app/:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> - easier to version control relevant / non-build-artifact app
> >> bits
> >> >> > > >> - aesthetics
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Arguments against it:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> - we break shit for users
> >> >> > > >> - config.xml location and PhoneGap Build compatibility (but I
> >> don't
> >> >> > see
> >> >> > > >> this as a valid argument against. This is an easy problem to
> >> solve
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > us
> >> >> > > >> Adobe folk and the tooling can handle the trivial steps of
> going
> >> up
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > > >> directory to grab the right file before interfacing with
> Build)
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Also worth noting: people we're not against it for
> architectural
> >> >> > > reasons,
> >> >> > > >> in fact, most people were favorable for the change to app/.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> So, with plugman stabilizing and my focus moving to cli work,
> I
> >> >> feel I
> >> >> > > >> have a good grasp of both projects and the direction they are
> >> going,
> >> >> > > here
> >> >> > > >> is my suggestion on how to move forward with this:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> 1. cordova-cli's master branch, which will soon merge future
> work
> >> >> in,
> >> >> > > will
> >> >> > > >> revert to the old /www-based structure, then
> >> >> > > >> 2. In 3.0 we make the change, where landing such a breaking
> >> change
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > >> easier and we'll have a bunch of press/noise about the release
> >> out
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > > >> too so communicating this change would be easier.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> If there are any other arguments for/against the app/ based
> >> >> structure,
> >> >> > > now
> >> >> > > >> is the time to bring it up. We can give this some more time to
> >> bake,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > > >> after 2.8 is released, I'd like to call a vote on whether we
> >> should
> >> >> > move
> >> >> > > >> to this structure or not in 3.0.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> On 4/16/13 8:31 AM, "Michal Mocny" <mmocny@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>> I should also add.  I appreciate that this is a change, and
> >> every
> >> >> > > change
> >> >> > > >>> has some learning overhead and we shouldn't stuff everything
> >> >> possible
> >> >> > > in
> >> >> > > >>> all the time.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> However, I think 3.0 and cli are a big change, and we should
> do
> >> the
> >> >> > big
> >> >> > > >>> re-org all at once, so lets decide this now in a way we wont
> >> >> regret.
> >> >> > > >>> Thats
> >> >> > > >>> why we are being picky, I guess.  I like knowing that the
> root
> >> of
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > >>> project has cordova-only artifacts and your app-repo is just
> a
> >> >> > > >>> subdirectory
> >> >> > > >>> somewhere.  Then, the exact location and exact contents are
> way
> >> >> more
> >> >> > > >>> flexible.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> -Michal
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Michal Mocny <
> >> >> mmocny@chromium.org>
> >> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>> Okay, we've got options, so lets try to distill the details.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> First, some of the other (perceived) benefits of an app
> folder
> >> >> are:
> >> >> > > >>>> * we do a raw cp -r of the www/ folder, and so that should
> have
> >> >> only
> >> >> > > >>>> platform agnostic and "necessary" files.
> >> >> > > >>>> * merges folder was removed from www/ because it did not
> meet
> >> >> above
> >> >> > > >>>> criteria, and config.xml is another candidate
> >> >> > > >>>> * there also potentially exist docs/ (useful for shared
> apps,
> >> like
> >> >> > > >>>> mobile-spec), platform specific resource files (icons,
> splash
> >> >> > screen),
> >> >> > > >>>> etc
> >> >> > > >>>> * a git repository is already basically mirroring the
> concept
> >> of
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > >>>> "app
> >> >> > > >>>> folder"
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> So, I've come up with the following potential workflows for
> >> >> starting
> >> >> > > >>>> with
> >> >> > > >>>> an existing app:
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> #1: "your app repo is moved into some subdirectory of a
> cordova
> >> >> > > project
> >> >> > > >>>> --
> >> >> > > >>>> its exact location is basically a cordova artifact"
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova create Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cd Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova app add [--link] git-repo/local-repo (nicely akin
> to
> >> >> plugin
> >> >> > > >>>> add)
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova plugin/platforms add ...
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> #2: "your app repo becomes a cordova project in-place"
> >> >> > > >>>>  git clone FooApp (this repo contains merges/ and www/)
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova create FooApp Foo (cli should not clobber existing
> >> >> folders)
> >> >> > > >>>>  cd FooApp
> >> >> > > >>>>  set up .gitignore for cordova artifacts (cordova should try
> >> not
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > >>>> introduce new artifacts)
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova plugin/platforms add ...
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> #3: "what we have now"
> >> >> > > >>>>  git clone FooApp
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova create Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cp -R FooApp/{www,merges,...} Foo  (or ln -s)
> >> >> > > >>>>  cd Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova plugin/platforms add ...
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> (Please let me know of more workflows)
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> Workflow #1 I think is very clean, and requires an app
> folder
> >> >> > concept
> >> >> > > >>>> (we
> >> >> > > >>>> could maybe use a temporary intermediate folder to get
> around
> >> >> this,
> >> >> > > but
> >> >> > > >>>> why).
> >> >> > > >>>> Workflow #2 essentially your app repo is the app folder
> >> concept,
> >> >> but
> >> >> > > now
> >> >> > > >>>> the cordova artifacts also go inside it.  Would require
> minimal
> >> >> > > changes
> >> >> > > >>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>> cordova-cli to not clobber, and requires gitignore.
> >> >> > > >>>> Workflow #3 is what we have now, which I think is the worst
> >> option
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > > >>>> app
> >> >> > > >>>> management, but can work with or without an app folder.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> Also, I think it would be great if apps had both plugin and
> >> >> platform
> >> >> > > >>>> dependancies, such that you could distill workflow #1 down
> to:
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova create Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cd Foo
> >> >> > > >>>>  cordova app add git-repo
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> .. and it would run the plugin/platform add automatically.
>  Can
> >> >> even
> >> >> > > get
> >> >> > > >>>> that down to a single "cordova create git-repo" line.  That
> >> would
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > > >>>> sharing apps, such as mobile-spec-test, really trivial.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> -Michal
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Grieve
> >> >> > > >>>> <agrieve@chromium.org>wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>> So, reading through the thread Braden linked to:
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cordova.apache.org/msg05775.html
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>> There are two advantage that were brought up:
> >> >> > > >>>>> 1. config.xml (configuration) does not live along side of
> app
> >> >> > > resources
> >> >> > > >>>>> 2. It will make it easier to package apps
> >> >> > > >>>>>  - E.g. zip the app/ directory and install it into the
> >> >> app-harness
> >> >> > > >>>>> (instead of zipping www + merges). Likewise for phonegap
> >> build.
> >> >> > > >>>>>  - E.g. cordova-mobile-spec would contain the contents of
> >> app/.
> >> >> > With
> >> >> > > >>>>> our
> >> >> > > >>>>> current setup, it would contain www/ merges/, and have the
> CLI
> >> >> > place
> >> >> > > >>>>> build
> >> >> > > >>>>> artifacts within the repo's directory instead of as a
> sibling
> >> to
> >> >> > it.
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>> I think everyone acknowledged the benefits, but there was
> >> still
> >> >> > > >>>>> not consensus over whether it was "worth it".
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>> I don't really feel strongly about it. Braden says it's
> easy
> >> to
> >> >> > > change
> >> >> > > >>>>> code-wise. Does anyone want to go to bat for it?
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>> I'd rather we did not go ahead w/ the new directory
> >> structure.
> >> >> It
> >> >> > > >>>>> offers no
> >> >> > > >>>>>> functional benefit, and comes at an upgrade cost for ppl
> >> using
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > >>>>> CLI
> >> >> > > >>>>>> tools today.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> >> >> > > agrieve@chromium.org
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> Just catching up on the past week of emails and it's not
> >> clear
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > >>>>> there
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> was a consensus here. By the sounds of it though:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> 1. Lots of users are using Cordova-CLI (master branch)
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> 2. Cordova-CLI's "future" branch has
> >> non-backwards-compatible
> >> >> > > >>>>> changes.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> 3. One of these changes is the directory structure.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> The main debate is on how to message these changes to
> users.
> >> >> What
> >> >> > > >>>>> we
> >> >> > > >>>>>> should
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> do is:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> 1. Have an upgrade guide. (e.g. paths are now relative to
> >> >> > > >>>>> plugin.xml)
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> 2. Ensure that our error handling shows useful messages
> when
> >> >> they
> >> >> > > >>>>> result
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> from an old-way-of-doing-things (e.g. your app's
> structure
> >> >> > doesn't
> >> >> > > >>>>>> match.)
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> Rather than printing out the commands to run to convert
> >> their
> >> >> > > >>>>> project,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> maybe we could have them in the upgrade guide and have
> the
> >> >> error
> >> >> > > >>>>> messages
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> point to the guide?
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Tim Kim <
> >> timkim85@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Braden I have merged master and the future branch:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> https://github.com/timkim/plugman/tree/future_master_merge
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> I think it's about ready to merge back in to future.
> I've
> >> >> gotten
> >> >> > > >>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> android-one-install and the ios-config-xml-install
> (minus
> >> one
> >> >> > > >>>>> weird
> >> >> > > >>>>>> test
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> I
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> don't understand) working.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On 10 April 2013 14:42, Anis KADRI <
> anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> As far as I am concerned I don't really have a strong
> >> opinion
> >> >> > > >>>>> on
> >> >> > > >>>>> this
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> topic. As I said in the previous thread, I do like this
> >> new
> >> >> > > >>>>> directory
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> structure and if you have it there and tested then
> fine.
> >> We
> >> >> > > >>>>> break
> >> >> > > >>>>>> shit
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> all
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the time it's not like this change is one too many.
> What
> >> >> > > >>>>> matters
> >> >> > > >>>>> is
> >> >> > > >>>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> communicate it to our users and give them an upgrade
> path
> >> to
> >> >> > > >>>>> this
> >> >> > > >>>>> new
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> app
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> structure (the Cordova docs are a good place for that).
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> However, I agree with Brian that there are more
> important
> >> >> > > >>>>> things
> >> >> > > >>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> tackle
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> right now. Now sure what you had on your list but
> since js
> >> >> only
> >> >> > > >>>>>> modules
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> are
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> in Plugman right now (untested) The next big thing
> that is
> >> >> > > >>>>> going
> >> >> > > >>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>> be
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> non-trivial is: plugin dependencies (which will in some
> >> ways
> >> >> > > >>>>> involve
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> discovery I think). We should have a discussion about
> that
> >> >> > > >>>>> (hangout,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> IRC,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> connect...whatever). I have a couple of ideas about
> that.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Tim is working on fixing/adding/updating plugman tests
> >> and it
> >> >> > > >>>>> looks
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> like
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> he's making good progress on it.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> -a
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Michael Wolf <
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> Michael.Wolf@cynergy.com
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I get the intention, however anything we can do to
> reduce
> >> >> > > >>>>> this
> >> >> > > >>>>> type
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> of
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> breaking change should be done.   These type of
> changes
> >> >> > > >>>>> should
> >> >> > > >>>>> be
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> considered for major releases only so users can plan
> for
> >> >> > > >>>>> them.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> mw
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/13 5:05 PM, "Jesse" <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to the sanity plea of devgeek Tommy
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, if it didn't happen on this list, ....
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'Consensus' should always be tracked back to a thread
> >> here,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> regardless
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings, hangouts, irc, bbs, ...
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @purplecabbage
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> risingj.com
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, tommy-carlos Williams
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <tommy@devgeeks.org>wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but as someone that helps users everyday, the
> >> >> > > >>>>> almost
> >> >> > > >>>>>> "it's
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they shoulda seen it coming" tone of this is a bit
> >> >> > > >>>>> upsetting.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of before the deprecation policy, etc
> >> when
> >> >> > > >>>>>> PhoneGap
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> would
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> completely break everything whenever a new version
> came
> >> >> > > >>>>> out.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I feel like we have come a long way since then
> (with a
> >> >> > > >>>>> ways
> >> >> > > >>>>>> still
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> go,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> no question about it).  I would hate to be the one
> in
> >> IRC
> >> >> > > >>>>> and on
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Google
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Group list having to explain this to everyone using
> the
> >> >> > > >>>>> cli.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was under the impression that the cli was
> "shipping"
> >> >> > > >>>>> now,
> >> >> > > >>>>> not
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> just a
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> little side thing. I know that quite a few people
> are
> >> >> > > >>>>> using
> >> >> > > >>>>> it
> >> >> > > >>>>>> for
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> real
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> apps (myself included). If that is true, then we
> have a
> >> >> > > >>>>> duty
> >> >> > > >>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>> at
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> least
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> think very carefully before breaking something and
> >> come up
> >> >> > > >>>>> with
> >> >> > > >>>>>> a
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> good
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> plan
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for easing that transition.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - tommy
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2013, at 1:40, Braden Shepherdson <
> >> >> > > >>>>> braden@chromium.org
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This mailing list post is, or will shortly be,
> indexed
> >> >> > > >>>>> by
> >> >> > > >>>>>> Google
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> and
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Any newcomers will see the new docs and
> create
> >> >> > > >>>>> new
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> projects.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned on IRC, existing users are either
> >> >> > > >>>>> accepting
> >> >> > > >>>>> or
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> ignoring
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "alpha" warnings that this software is new and
> under
> >> >> > > >>>>> heavy
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if they want to jump on it early they're going to
> have
> >> >> > > >>>>> to
> >> >> > > >>>>>> expect
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> some
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pain.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I don't really know of any better way to
> >> >> > > >>>>> socialize
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> it.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Is
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere where a brief blog post on this would make
> >> >> > > >>>>> sense?
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how many people are using these tools
> and
> >> >> > > >>>>> not
> >> >> > > >>>>> on
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> list, though certainly some turn up on IRC
> >> occasionally.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Braden
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Filip Maj
> >> >> > > >>>>> <fil@adobe.com>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we communicate this change to our
> existing
> >> >> > > >>>>> users?
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/13 5:22 PM, "Braden Shepherdson" <
> >> >> > > >>>>> braden@chromium.org
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just pushed a change to the future branch
> that
> >> >> > > >>>>> changes
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> directory
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure to:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> app/
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  merges/
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      android/
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      ios/
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  www/
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  config.xml
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As was discussed at our video conference meeting
> a
> >> >> > > >>>>> couple of
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> weeks
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ago,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has a number of advantages:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - config.xml is no longer in the www/ directory
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - One can easily version control the whole app/
> >> >> > > >>>>> directory,
> >> >> > > >>>>>> and
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> get
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web assets, merges and so on into the repo.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - That repo can contain additional information: a
> >> >> > > >>>>> README.md,
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> supplementary
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation, tests, whatever. The CLI will
> ignore
> >> >> > > >>>>> anything
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merges and www directories.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The downside is that this is a breaking change:
> >> >> > > >>>>> running
> >> >> > > >>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> new
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> version of
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tools on an old project will fail (but I
> think
> >> in
> >> >> > > >>>>> a
> >> >> > > >>>>>>> harmless
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> way)
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you rearrange the directories. You can do that
> with
> >> >> > > >>>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> following
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands:
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mkdir app
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv www/config.xml app
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv www app
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv merges app
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All docs and tests are updated as well. Any
> problems
> >> >> > > >>>>> should
> >> >> > > >>>>>> be
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported on
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA and assigned to me.
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Braden
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> --
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> Timothy Kim
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

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