cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Wolf <Michael.W...@Cynergy.com>
Subject Re: New directory structure in cordova-cli's future branch
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 14:41:46 GMT
Also this is assuming your making no changes to Platforms, and I among
others often make changes to the native containers, which then must be
checked in.

mw

On 5/23/13 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.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > *so҆ 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:j76
>>>xli
>>> >> > > >> 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
View raw message