cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.1 Release
Date Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:55:25 GMT
Sweet! Thanks Steve! Hopefully I didn't break anything :-S

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have merged the dev branches into master on my machine and tagged all of
> the plugins. I am planning on merging this into master tomorrow if no one
> has any issues.
>
> I will also send a review request for the plugin release blog once I finish
> it tomorrow.
>
> Tracking everything at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4915
>
> -Steve
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Good point. I think the issue arrises if some of our users keep using 3.0,
>> install plugins using the git url (master branch) and then try to remove
>> the plugins using the 3.0 documentation. When the master branch gets
>> updated, it won't have core in the ID. This will make the remove
>> instructions incorrect.
>>
>> An upgrade guide/blog post actually sounds like the best way to handle
>> this issue.
>>
>> I am going to pick up where Anis left of and aim to do a plugin release
>> later this afternoon
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
View raw message