cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <>
Subject Re: Publishing to npm
Date Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:42:54 GMT
Right - yes, my goal is not to slow things down. Rather - if you go on
vacation, I'd like the releases to keep coming and not stop with there
being no instructions on how to do them (or worse - me pushing to npm
incorrectly and breaking the world). E.g. are you pushing master? or are
you working off of a 3.0.x release branch that's just for bugfix

I would like to increase visibility of releases though. I know you often
email out when you update npm, but it's a lot of work to know what you've
released. E.g. I know Anis is working on the registry, and in my eyes
that's not a patch version type release. But has it gone out to npm
already? Bug fixes are fine for patch releases, but new features are not.

I actually dislike using JIRA for releases quite a bit. Maybe an email
would suffice? I do think it would be worth emailing before releasing
though. Even if it delays things 24 hours (I agree 72 hours seems

The voting is not very useful for this project I don't think, but a second
set of eyes goes a long way for sanity-checking what goes live. Maybe the
npm process could involve getting agreement / sign-off from 2 devs?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:

> I think Anis meant patch releases (we already create jira issues for minor
> releases, which come every month)
> On 7/31/13 11:26 AM, "Anis KADRI" <> wrote:
> >I agree with Fil. I am ok with tagging every npm release but I don't
> >think creating a Jira issue for minor point releases will be really
> >beneficial.
> >
> >On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
> >> I'd like to avoid a voting / consensus process _for EVERY RELEASE_ if
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> We are including the tools in our monthly releases, and that I think is
> >> good enough in terms of following Apache process. This way there's lazy
> >> consensus per minor release.
> >>
> >> Being able to publish revisions to npm and fix bugs that way has been a
> >> positive experience for devs as well as users. Don't know why we would
> >> want to change that. Quick patch releases have been great for building
> >> confidence in our tools within our community.
> >>
> >> Filing a JIRA issue for every patch release is super overkill and doing
> >> lazy consensus for that seems even worse. We've had 5 patch releases so
> >> far since 3.0.0. Lazy consensus requires 72 hours of email fermentation.
> >> So that would mean we can release a max of 10 releases per month?
> >>Doesn't
> >> make sense to me.
> >>
> >> Tagging every npm release makes a lot of sense for all of our tools /
> >> plugins, but to be noted that we release tools/plugins differently than
> >> platforms, so figuring out the differences there would be a good idea.
> >>
> >> On 7/31/13 10:54 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <> wrote:
> >>
> >>>We're telling people to install plugman & cordova via npm, but we're
> >>>publishing updates to npm on a regular basis without any sort of release
> >>>process. True?
> >>>
> >>>Or maybe npm has a way to publish dev versions that people won't pick up
> >>>by
> >>>default?
> >>>
> >>>Either way, I'll start the ball rolling here:
> >>>
> >>>For a of any of our pieces (npm, plugins, platforms), I think it's a
> >>>must
> >>>to have a wiki page documenting the release process. We have this for
> >>>platforms (although it needs updating now that we're 3.0), but we need
> >>>this
> >>>for plugins & npm modules as well now.
> >>>
> >>>A release process should :
> >>>1 - include testing procedures to follow when releasing
> >>>2 - be detailed enough that anyone can perform the release
> >>>3 - include a JIRA release issue to track the occurrence of the release.
> >>>4 - include creating a git tag for the release
> >>>
> >>>Anything else?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>All releases should also have a vote (even if it's recorded through a
> >>>JIRA
> >>>issue). This is stated in the apache rules, but also serves the purpose
> >>>of
> >>>making a release a team release instead of an individual release). I'd
> >>>like
> >>>to see a release vote happen as an email that includes:
> >>>1 - Main motivation for the release (even if it's just "time has
> >>>passed")
> >>>2 - The changelog since the previous release.
> >>>
> >>>Make sense?
> >>>
> >>>Andrew
> >>

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