cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.1 Release
Date Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:45:12 GMT
It could be a doc or or blog post, I would suggest blog post for plugins
for more details about dealing with registry since those have a faster pace

--Carlos



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>wrote:

> Would suggest we document a simple workflow document "Upgrade Guide
> Cordova CLI/PlugMan 3.0 to 3.1"
> Same way that we do for the platforms on going over the details in a
> single document.
>
> --Carlos
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the 3.0 instructions of removing the old plugin with the old ID
>> remain correct even after we update the registry.  Thats because when
>> removing plugins from a workspace you use the ID of whats locally
>> installed.
>>
>> So, to upgrade, users would have the use the 3.0 uninstall guide and the
>> 3.1 install guide.. I think?
>>
>> -Michal
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That's a good summary. I am going to be fixing the reference problem
>> > shortly and merge them back to the `dev` branch. Not sure if all of
>> > Jesse's changes have made it to the `dev` branch yet.
>> >
>> > The `edge` docs have already been updated (see CB-4493)
>> >
>> > The `3.0` docs will have to be updated once we merge `dev` back to
>> > `master` (which I hope we will before we release 3.1).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > I realize why Anis decided to do a new branch (3.1.0) because he
>> didn't
>> > > want to mess up dev/master. Before we release 3.1.0 we need to do a
>> > plugin
>> > > release based off of
>> > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/StepsForPluginRelease.
>> > > Jesse has changes for the plugins that he has pushed to dev now based
>> on
>> > > this email thread. He needs these changes to be in the next plugin
>> > release
>> > > we are doing for the 3.1.0 release.
>> > >
>> > > If I am understanding this correctly, removing core from ID was not
>> > > something we want in master due to 3.0.0 support. But this ID change
>> > should
>> > > have been done on dev before creating the 3.1.0 branch. The 3.0.0 docs
>> > get
>> > > users to install plugins using the git url. The problem is that the
>> 3.0.0
>> > > docs instruct our users to use the ID for plugin removal. Obviously
>> if we
>> > > change the ID, the remove documentation for 3.0.0 would be wrong.
>> > >
>> > > We have two options here as far as I can tell
>> > >
>> > > 1) Leave master alone for the next month or two and give people time
>> to
>> > > migrate to 3.1
>> > > 2) Update the 3.0 documentation to refer to updated id, Push the
>> updated
>> > ID
>> > > to dev then master.
>> > >
>> > > Things that need to be done
>> > >  - Fix incorrect references to the old ID (last comment on
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4889)
>> > >  - Merge these changes into dev (they really should be on dev if that
>> is
>> > > where we all the work done)
>> > >  - Follow steps on
>> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/StepsForPluginReleaseand
>> > > publish these plugins on our registry. This should include Jesse's
>> work
>> > as
>> > > well.
>> > >  - Update edge docs to refer to registry for plugin installation (not
>> > sure
>> > > if this has been done)
>> > >  - Update 3.0.0 documentation if we decide option 2 from above is the
>> way
>> > > to go
>> > >  - Tag docs 3.1.0-rc1
>> > >
>> > > I volunteer to take the lead on getting the plugins released + tested
>> > > (supposed to be today according to Andrew's timeline) for tomorrow
>> > > afternoon. I can get to the docs after that.
>> > >
>> > > Before I dive into this full steam, any feedback on above?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Just to be super duper clear: the reason to work on 'dev' branch of
>> > plugins
>> > >> is not some process decision we are imposing, its a direct
>> requirement
>> > >> imposed on us by the limitations of our tools (specifically, the
>> state
>> > of
>> > >> the registry as it was with 3.0 launch).
>> > >>
>> > >> We discussed this in-depth just a week ago (Read "About plugins in
>> > 3.1"),
>> > >> and I think several other times over the last month, if you would
>> like
>> > to
>> > >> read up on the details look there.
>> > >>
>> > >> No one likes the situation, we've been making headway into fixing it
>> > ever
>> > >> since we discovered the problem, and it can be resolved as soon as
>> users
>> > >> upgrade from 3.0 (maybe that means we can switch after 3.1 release,
>> > maybe
>> > >> that means we wait for some 3-months deprecation time, not sure).
>> > >>
>> > >> -Michal
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
>> > braden@chromium.org
>> > >> >wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I agree with Joe that developing on anything other than master
>> sucks.
>> > But
>> > >> > unfortunately, our hands are tied in the near term because the
>> > registry
>> > >> > doesn't know to fetch plugins from anywhere else. Also it makes
>> life
>> > >> easier
>> > >> > for being who are installing plugins from git URLs.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I think we eventually want to get to a world where 99% of plugin
>> > installs
>> > >> > are happening from the registry, the registry knows how to fetch
>> tags,
>> > >> and
>> > >> > people who are using git URLs directly know what they're doing
and
>> > want
>> > >> the
>> > >> > dev version. (Also you can specify branches with #gitref in the
>> URL,
>> > so
>> > >> > there's flexibility there.) But we're not there yet.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Braden
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Yes, let's get this cleared up - confused myself.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Anis KADRI <
>> anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > 3.1.0 is coincidental and it's temporary for this release
>> because
>> > I
>> > >> > > > wasn't sure where to get the code from and didn't want
to
>> > compromise
>> > >> > > > master or dev. I could have called it something else.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Jesse, I'd advise you to commit to dev. Everything will
be
>> merged
>> > to
>> > >> > > > master eventually.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > So to re-iterate the process: right now it's "dev ->
master"
>> and
>> > >> > > > eventually it will be "master -> (independant) plugin
version".
>> > >> > > > amarite?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Joe Bowser <
>> bowserj@gmail.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Grieve
<
>> > >> agrieve@chromium.org
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >> Plugins are not tagged nor branched along with
platforms.
>> They
>> > are
>> > >> > > > releases
>> > >> > > > >> completely independently.
>> > >> > > > >>
>> > >> > > > >> Commit to the "dev" branch always.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > AND FOREVER!!!!!11!!eleventyone!!!
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Seriously, can't we have a stable branch instead?
Having the
>> dev
>> > >> > > > > branch for dev on plugins and having master for
dev on
>> > platforms is
>> > >> > > > > stupid and makes it harder to do work.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Santana
> <csantana23@gmail.com>
>



-- 
Carlos Santana
<csantana23@gmail.com>

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