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: [DISCUSS] Plugin master branches
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:00:02 GMT
+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