Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FE33F73F for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 62100 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2014 18:22:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 62059 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2014 18:22:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 62051 invoked by uid 99); 25 Apr 2014 18:22:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:22:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of iclelland@google.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.173] (HELO mail-ob0-f173.google.com) (209.85.214.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:22:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id wn1so4664494obc.18 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=q0PFkBO+49nkIGNcvLapWd9qukYBYFJqeclwDBORRbk=; b=XmZhYO1omMzQhMGIOqo2E1osNHmD1oo/UdDdlpiocQ+iDQuOwh+zaZYNzuVVA7VAf3 8QC10eehkSxC00cwoJTlQ/XrCMspUZBmA/q9vCEduy644Ss6tRF+udoNT67Hu8dz6c2x t6WlQPaYkNchHBset8U4GPbQOeBQQs6YAIAMkZmwLzf0zo1i+Vs61/qirI3aB+wI6TbZ UN6x6dqSVzCJxZl9qBcAo9N7Uc+lRddFh059zFc34p8VdW34D4FiEtuernJYgX/6hp8o T5TXWBIV9grmdza2j1/FYFaLzVoyDp9lxLz5z8QomIqu1H6B3WwvJwozMd/P6xdOgBOm QmyQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=q0PFkBO+49nkIGNcvLapWd9qukYBYFJqeclwDBORRbk=; b=Gxbf1ljKe8ZgwtA2f3MSiiH/ehNYyB9Wb/sfGEibpOhBLsU8xc4GGDWXCJS4O/UkGN +ciVZb3OoJUtnGuoh1AhL+vAa8zyP9Q6gPjF662tkb6rNROOuDeQ5gUrIxzP43NbiZB4 E1IG0GxFjQ19x4f0mHJm/56hJj245SVdVgWE8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=q0PFkBO+49nkIGNcvLapWd9qukYBYFJqeclwDBORRbk=; b=ilY/0PrVbujlEVbB8gceIFwUc9ctV2zaacLgmrqtBM9PtOlHwGiJ4YlScayKKdpID6 hly8RzY9LWj+QZmoaOTjC1uCARXzGEGXY/OiJAoFGPwuLqSSRoVXRSxypMtt9k729cv9 zxHSqYFCv9YaVJH3v0Ff9dDmy2XhUxCbxruNuZ6gjvu4Els5hhXb+TE1ypiuINXwWS7W jkkGnpXMTetIPGSZ5TRAauk4HGCokhnuuAC5K8TFu6LOZ7obcHFtaVH/tRXLs8Q/hWVi 2e1FypryhZFcsFB3EetbqpNOZLOAbTh+GCAVMZoujoeO31hZaMeTaVD9HrCk1WYcXc2W cmUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmzBh5CYlZeXXSKx1knuG3e/7EHp3/fNhGfKJ5LGtYM1GGgNhln4m/em8hFelNMKpWC3VsfkuBUAFwmuSWop1WiAHO7tBl5r+iRBDwj2+dPl+CEMJgYGPovHNap2iYUE9GR7PjQ35u6aMeU0gfrvbYyvBtPOZlYr6AeazhN7K430jJmwjxBeoJaHtnkbdH4jLA18v1Kn2AfS1u/uuJybN9YlUr3A== X-Received: by 10.182.42.228 with SMTP id r4mr8329880obl.20.1398450112400; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: iclelland@google.com Received: by 10.182.225.135 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:21:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3AAB22CF-B009-4977-AE8A-23A10A54984C@gmail.com> <5357d001.c341420a.4ce1.6079@mx.google.com> <535950B7.4000002@mozilla.com> From: Ian Clelland Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:21:31 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ec0gvpuJME97c8SNNkyxTRdr1nw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Plugin master branches To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c30b0e2fff4504f7e20a57 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c30b0e2fff4504f7e20a57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is now done. Buildbot will be broken until we update it to always use master plugin branches; otherwise everything should be okay. For the morbidly curious: $ cordova-coho/coho repo-update -r plugins $ cordova-coho/coho foreach -r plugins "git checkout master; git merge dev" $ echo -e "\nThis is \`dev\` - the deprecated development branch of this plugin; development of this plugin has moved to the \`master\` branch" >> notice $ cordova-coho/coho o foreach -r plugins "git checkout dev; git rm -r *; git checkout HEAD -- README.md; cat ../notice >> README.md; git add README.md; git commit -m 'CB-6521: Remove development branch'" $ cordova-coho/coho repo-push -r plugins On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Sounds good! There are a couple tweaks to coho to remove (yay) special > casing of plugin repos. I can make that change once you're done. > > Go for a rm -r commit on dev instead of removing the HEAD right away, > because I *think* if you delete the remote branch, then someone can > easily (and accidentally) re-push their version of dev up. > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Michal Mocny > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Ian Clelland >wrote: > > > >> I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6521 to track > this > >> now. > >> > >> My plan is to merge all of the dev branches into master, and push that. > At > >> that point, anyone pushing new changes can just push directly to master, > >> and everything should be good. > >> > >> If I delete the dev branches immediately after doing that (really just > the > >> branch name, at that point), is that going to interfere with anyone's > >> workflow? I hope that anyone with outstanding changes on a dev branch > can > >> just rebase them onto master after a git pull. > >> > >> Alternately, I can make a commit onto the dev branches that removes all > of > >> the code and replaces it with a "Development has moved to master" readme > >> file. That should cause a good merge conflict for anyone trying to > commit > >> to dev after that point, and will stop people from accidentally > recreating > >> the dev branch when they go to push. > >> > > +1 to that idea. > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Andrew Grieve > >> wrote: > >> > >> > A good reference would be: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/blob/master/docs/committer-workflow.md > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Piotr Zalewa > >> wrote: > >> > > I think we should have a sane contributing to Cordova page which > would > >> > > explain which branch does what. > >> > > > >> > > I agree master is a default for a bleeding edge with tags > representing > >> > > current release. > >> > > > >> > > Dnia Thu Apr 24 11:56:45 2014 Braden Shepherdson pisze: > >> > > > >> > >> Standardizing the release tag names so that it can find the > "latest" > >> one > >> > >> is > >> > >> a can of worms I don't want us to open. > >> > >> > >> > >> The normal, standard flow is to install from the registry. If > you're > >> > using > >> > >> the nonstandard git way, it's your job to pick the right branch, > and > >> > >> master > >> > >> is the correct default. Choosing any other tag is much more > surprising > >> > >> than > >> > >> using master when you're pulling from git with a bare URL. > >> > >> > >> > >> Users can already do " > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser#commitish" > (or > >> > >> #:sub/dir, or #commitish:sub/dir). We support naming whatever > branch, > >> > tag, > >> > >> or commit hash you like if you need something specific. master is > the > >> > sane > >> > >> default. > >> > >> > >> > >> Braden > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:36 AM, purplecabbage > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Carlos Santana < > csantana23@gmail.com> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> +1 on using one branch "master" > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> But, should we look into changing/enhancing the default behavior > for > >> > >>> > >> > >>> "git" > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> plugin install implementation to: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> if just a git url " > >> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser > >> > >>> > >> > >>> " > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> it will query the tags/releases, and not pull latest commit and > >> > instead > >> > >>>> pull down latest release "r.0.4.0" from master. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Or it's not worth? user can just do " > >> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser@r.0.4.0" > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Yes, this. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> --Carlos > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Michal Mocny < > mmocny@chromium.org > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> Also, it will only "break" new plugin installs. > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Ian Clelland < > >> > iclelland@chromium.org > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>>> 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 > >> > 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 > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> -- > >> > >>>> Carlos Santana > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Piotr Zalewa > >> > > Mozilla > >> > > >> > --001a11c30b0e2fff4504f7e20a57--