cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Kemp <drk...@google.com>
Subject Re: Mobilespec / CI / version problems
Date Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:34:56 GMT
I believe that will be OK - testing it out now.

It still probably deserves some documentation somewhere that the previously
stated relationships don't work anymore, and that any plugin references in
a 3.0.x project need attention.



On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

> Would it fix it to use mobile-spec from master when testing 3.0.x?
> Mobile-spec generally stays in sync with the plugins more so than the
> platforms, so it would make sense to me to use mobile-spec at master if
> using plugins from master/dev.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:40 PM, David Kemp <drkemp@google.com> wrote:
>
> > The issue is the that stated methodology for getting the right versions
> to
> > test is:
> > * for release, get plugins from the master branch and platforms, tests
> etc
> > from the release branch (3.0.x)
> > * for tip of tree, get plugins from the dev branch and platforms, tests
> etc
> > from the master branch
> > Since the rename was done to the plugins on master (appropriate for
> 3.1.x)
> > that no longer leaves a place to get plugins that are 'compatible' with
> > 3.0.x
> >
> > The issue that I am pointing out right now is that the file:
> > cordova-mobile-spec/dependencies-plugin/plugin.xml
> > explicitly names the plugins with the old name in the 3.0.x branch of
> > mobile-spec. so it breaks.
> >
> > If a developer has a similar references to their 3.0.x plugins, it will
> > also fail next time they build a fresh new project.
> >
> > For CI it means that all tests of the 3.0.x branch now fail.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarcelk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In the past I've used #3. When checking out code to test, I try to get
> > all
> > > the assets from the same branch / time period. But I may be skewed in
> > that
> > > approach, since our product that embeds Cordova has a snapshot of the
> > > platforms and plugins, and doesn't get updates from the online repos.
> > >
> > > Does what you are saying infer that the rename of the plugins is a
> > > breaking change? And needs to have some verbage in the Upgrading
> guides?
> > >
> > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, David Kemp <drkemp@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Summary: Due to the renaming of plugins, there is no longer a
> sensible
> > > way
> > > > to test 3.0.x
> > > >
> > > > Detail:
> > > > The process to test 3.0.x is to get platforms, mobile-spec, etc from
> > > 3.0.x
> > > > and plugins from master. With the change on plugin names (remove
> core)
> > > the
> > > > 3.0.x mobile-spec still refers to the names with core , but the
> master
> > > > branch of the plugins no longer have that name.
> > > >
> > > > Possible resolutions:
> > > > 1) never mind - mobilespec for 3.0.x is broken, it will be fixed in
> > 3.1.x
> > > > 2) cherrypick the change to mobilespec dependencies back to 3.0.x
> > > > 3) find some other way to get the older plugins available to test.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > David Kemp
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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