cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Post 3.0.0 Releases - Plugins
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:51:52 GMT
Made an issue for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4622


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, sorry for not being clear - this is all entirely about our own
> > plugins.
> >
> > I liked everything you said Jesse. Only reason I'm suggesting dev vs
> master
> > is because right now that's how plugman works (pulls from master). If we
> > change plugman to look for a tag (like npm
> > install<https://npmjs.org/doc/cli/npm-install.html>does), then we can
> > change our branch structure.
> >
>
> I think this is worth doing -- Jesse's point is valid, that *always*
> requiring master to be stable imposes a lot on third-party developers.
>
> If we can't pull anything but master, then we can't properly depend on
> specific plugin revisions anyway, so it's going to be useful all around to
> be able to name branches/tags.
>
> And then we can decide for core plugins whether it makes sense to have the
> master/dev split, or to do something different.
>
> Ian
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, took me awhile to get this out, I should know better than to
> > > promise
> > > > to start a new threads on Friday afternoon. XD
> > > >
> > > > Split from 'Releases in a 3.0 World'
> > > >
> > > > RE: Pasted =>
> > > >
> > > > > cordova-plugins:
> > > > >  - Commit only to the `dev` branch
> > > > >  - Use semver for them.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > I don't think that we should dictate what we expect the community to do
> > > > with their own plugins. Here's some alternative thoughts:
> > > >
> > >
> > > All good ideas, I think. To be fair, though, I think that Andrew's
> > original
> > > proposal was specifically about core plugins, and how we version /
> > release
> > > those.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > a) versioning is done however the developer of the plugin wants to do
> > it,
> > > > for core plugins, because they are within our control and we ARE 'the
> > > > developer' we will use semver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. See above.
> > >
> > >
> > > > b) plugman needs to gain the ability to install any particular
> version
> > > of a
> > > > plugin, just like a plugin can depend on a specific version of
> another
> > > > plugin, we need to be able do this directly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably some kind of standard git url that names both the repo and the
> > > branch / tag.
> > >
> > >
> > > > c) do not enforce the use of a dev branch, master should be
> considered
> > a
> > > > work in progress, we have already had issues where 1 broken push to
> > > master
> > > > [1] broke the plugin for all platforms.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This will probably depend on (b), although we could also get the same
> > > effect by developing on master, and having plugman pull from a named
> > > "stable" branch (or some other named branch). Of course, if we want to
> > > support third-party plugins as well, without dictating to them, then we
> > > should probably be able to just tell plugman which branch to pull from
> > for
> > > any given plugin.
> > >
> > >
> > > > -  My personal expectation of a 'master' branch is that tests are
> > > passing,
> > > > but it is still the bleeding edge, and I should use it at my own
> risk.
> > > > -  If we want to suggest a tested latest version, in production, I
> > think
> > > we
> > > > should use a tag or branch of 'latest-stable' or something similar.
> > > > - also, plugman should be aware of version via tags or branches, and
> > not
> > > > blindly pull from master, this would likely be handled at plugin
> > > > registration time.  ( as in b above ) Then we can test a plugin's
> > > > integration with other plugins before pushing it live.
> > > >
> > > > The rest of the initial proposal is about process, which I don't
> think
> > we
> > > > govern for plugin developers.  We can certainly adopt something like
> > this
> > > > for the core plugins, but I think we should let the process evolve,
> and
> > > not
> > > > pretend we know what will happen next.
> > > >
> > > > I am not completely sold on the above, some of this is just me
> thinking
> > > out
> > > > loud, the main thing I worry is just that we may not have enough info
> > to
> > > > fully define this ( at least the process stuff), and I think it
> > > definitely
> > > > needs more discussion, and even maybe some experimentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> >
>

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