cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Plugin master branches
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:55:47 GMT
To be clear, this is just referring to Cordova CLI versions 3.0.0 - 3.0.4,
I think. By version 3.0.5, CLI had a dependency on plugman 0.10.0, which
included the "plugman-registry" branch. (We didn't push anything to the
registry until 3.1 was released, but we made sure that the infrastructure
was ready a while before).

If it is possible to use later versions of cordova-cli on a project that
uses Cordova 3.0 engines, then we should be clear that we're not breaking
Cordova 3.0 projects; just the oldest versions of the CLI, which developers
should be encouraged to upgrade in any case.



On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

> Didn't know about npm deprecate. Makes sense to me!
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can we deprecate version 3.0?
> > https://www.npmjs.org/doc/cli/npm-deprecate.html
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 as well. This will break Cordova 3.0 though. Cordova versions >= 3.1
> are
> >> fine because they support registries. Cordova 3.0 only supports git and
> can
> >> only fetch from master branches.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > +1++
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Steven Gill <
> stevengill97@gmail.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> +1!
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM, James Jong <wjamesjong@gmail.com
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > +1 Making it easier and less confusing for our new contributors
> is
> >> > good.
> >> > >> > -James Jong
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > +1! Certainly it's causing us a lot of pain still. Moving
to
> >> > releasing
> >> > >> > off
> >> > >> > > of master seems like it would work fine. It's been working
fine
> >> for
> >> > >> > > CLI/plugman, and they move much faster.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Braden Shepherdson
<
> >> > >> > braden@chromium.org>wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >> We originally needed the plugin releases to be on
the master
> >> branch
> >> > >> > because
> >> > >> > >> there was no way to have CLI/Plugman fetch from
other
> branches.
> >> > That
> >> > >> is
> >> > >> > no
> >> > >> > >> longer the case. Further, you're correct that the
registry's
> >> > tarballs
> >> > >> is
> >> > >> > >> the primary source now. Even if someone does have
a git
> >> dependency
> >> > >> > >> somewhere, they can specify a branch (actually any
ref) in the
> >> > >> > <dependency>
> >> > >> > >> tag. Likewise the command line.
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >> I'm all for moving development into the master branch.
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >> Braden
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Bryan Higgins
<
> >> > >> bryan@bryanhiggins.net
> >> > >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >>> +1
> >> > >> > >>>
> >> > >> > >>> I think the registry has been around for long
enough that the
> >> vast
> >> > >> > >> majority
> >> > >> > >>> of users won't be installing directly from git.
> >> > >> > >>>
> >> > >> > >>>
> >> > >> > >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ian Clelland
<
> >> > >> iclelland@chromium.org
> >> > >> > >>>> wrote:
> >> > >> > >>>
> >> > >> > >>>> I totally agree that we should do this.
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>> I think that once the current plugin release
is complete, I
> can
> >> > set
> >> > >> up
> >> > >> > >>> the
> >> > >> > >>>> branches so that the master branch is for
development, and
> we
> >> > can go
> >> > >> > >> from
> >> > >> > >>>> there.
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>> Is it a requirement that plugins be tagged
in git for npm to
> >> > >> function?
> >> > >> > >> I
> >> > >> > >>>> thought that the plugins were uploaded,
zipped, to our couch
> >> > server,
> >> > >> > >> for
> >> > >> > >>>> each release, and that there was no further
communication
> with
> >> > the
> >> > >> git
> >> > >> > >>>> repository? It shouldn't be a problem to
go back and make
> sure
> >> > >> they're
> >> > >> > >>>> properly tagged, but I'm just wondering
if it's still a
> >> > necessity.
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>> Ian
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Jesse <
> >> purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> >> > >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>> I am seeing more and more pull requests
that aren't easy
> >> merges
> >> > >> > >> because
> >> > >> > >>>>> people are starting their work from
the master branch, and
> not
> >> > dev.
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>> We discussed *a long time ago* that
at some point, we would
> >> > >> consider
> >> > >> > >>>> master
> >> > >> > >>>>> to be the bleeding edge of each plugin,
and we could then
> get
> >> > rid
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> > >>> the
> >> > >> > >>>>> dev branches.  The requirements to make
this possible
> >> included,
> >> > >> > >> using a
> >> > >> > >>>>> branch/tag for every npm release of
the plugin, and making
> >> sure
> >> > >> that
> >> > >> > >>>> plugin
> >> > >> > >>>>> dependencies were correctly mapped.
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>> Has anyone given this any more thought,
and do we have any
> >> idea
> >> > >> when
> >> > >> > >> we
> >> > >> > >>>>> will make the switch?
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>> Cheers,
> >> > >> > >>>>>  Jesse
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>> @purplecabbage
> >> > >> > >>>>> risingj.com
> >> > >> > >>>>>
> >> > >> > >>>>
> >> > >> > >>>
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
>

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