cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggi...@intel.com>
Subject RE: Independent platform release summary
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:15:35 GMT
I think (d) is moving in the right direction but would like to put forth some additional suggestions.
 I do not have the same level of history and experience with Cordova (usage and implementation)
that many of you do, and so it is entirely possible for me to suggest something ridiculous...
 ;-)

I think a "Cordova release" and it's version number, should be reflected in some component
version.  E.g. when a user talks about "Cordova 3.5", it's fairly easy to understand, in general,
the functionality they have.  The details will depend upon the "patch" version number.

So, I would tie the "Cordova version" to the CLI version.  In general, the Cordova & CLI
version would identify common workflow (CLI) and platform functionality.  Common platform
functionality is embodied in things like the common entries in config.xml, the default Cordova
project (Hello Cordova) etc.  This would be what the Cordova version specific documentation
would document for the ".0" patch version (e.g. Cordova version 3.6.0).

Plugin version numbers remain completely independent.  Platform version numbers are completely
independent as well, but it would be helpful if the platform major version number always matched
the Cordova major version number.  This would mean no incompatible platform functionality
changes during the support of a major Cordova version.  I don't know if that is realistic.
 Maybe changes like dropping support for an older platform don't need to require a platform
major version number change.

The Cordova and CLI major and minor version numbers increment with changes to the workflow
and common platform functionality - e.g. going from 3.5 -> 3.6 added new "whitelist" functionality.
 Each Cordova release tests with the latest versions of the plugins and latest versions of
the platforms.

When a platform releases, regardless of whether it is a major, minor, or patch release, the
Cordova and CLI version increments the patch version number.  I assume that each Cordova release,
including patch releases, defines the default version of each platform which is used when
the user adds a platform without a specific version number.

Leo

-----Original Message-----
From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal Mocny
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Smith, Peter
Cc: dev@cordova.apache.org
Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary

Just got through this thread.  Summarizing Proposals:

(a) CLI moves to v10.0.0, and version numbers increment at same rate as
(union of) platforms.
   - This has benefits, but is confusing as shit given our current plan.
I'm not sure it needs to be this confusing, but we shouldn't make moves
forward until we think this through some more.
   - This kinda conflicts with the whole point of independent releases,
too: a version bump for a platform you don't care about still affects you
(a bit).

(b) CLI version is a sum of all platform versions
   - I think this seems an minor management improvement over (a), but falls
apart when you consider what happens when you deprecate a platform in the
future.

(c) We move back to "pinning" platform versions to CLI version (aka, there
is a single cordova version number shared by everything)
   - This conflicts with independant versioning, but maybe not independent
releases (which is what we are really after).
   - This implies (I think) releases by date / cadence version, and not
real semver (Or semver but for the union of all platforms and tools, kinda
pointless).
   - To do independent platform releases, we should first find a
lightweight way to bump platform versions without a release (i.e.
cordova-ios@3.6.0 -> @3.7.0 rename when cordova-android bumps to @3.7.0).
Otherwise, devs will be upgrading platforms for no reason constantly.

(d) CLI versions completely independent of platforms, just like plugins.
   - In this case, we need to implement platform->cli version requirements
 (node peerDependancies?)
   - Basically means we play down CLI version entirely, users are just
expected to stay up to date with CLI always.  Platform versions are all
that matters.  I don't think this is too different than what we have today.

I personally like (d) most.  Sure, I do like the simplified versioning
story of (c) (basically cad-ver), but I think its less important now that
we are doing platform releases to npm.  I hope we won't rely on users
getting cordova from download links from the website, but rather just npm
upgrade -g.  I think (a) just complicates (d) needlessly without giving
real value to users.

Did I make any mistakes?  Shall we meet to discuss this at PGDay US, or
shall we do a hangout this week if we hope to have something to present to
the audience in time for PGDay US?

-Michal

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Smith, Peter <peters@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
wrote:

> Super version flexibility == Super version confusion.
>
> The Cordova site seems in need of a kind of
> Cordova/Platform/CLI/CorePlugin "version dependency matrix" which
> officially documents what-works-with-what (e.g. what has passed the
> official testing). Perhaps it would look something like the API support
> matrix at
> http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/3.6.0/guide_support_index.md.html#Platform%20Support
> .
>
> It might not be easy to do, but if the combined wit of Cordova committers
> is unable to clearly document versioning dependencies then what hope is
> there for end users to understand it?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: agrieve@google.com [mailto:agrieve@google.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Grieve
> Sent: Sunday, 5 October 2014 5:05 AM
> To: Treggiari, Leo
> Cc: Brian LeRoux; Andrew Grieve; dev@cordova.apache.org; Marcel Kinard
> Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the version numbers of platforms do not
> signify that platforms have the same functionality. Version numbers for
> plugins also don't really do this - many plugins have different
> capabilities on different platforms even at the same version number.
>
> For example, whitelists mean different things on different platforms.
> Another example is that different platforms added support for ArrayBuffers
> over the exec() bridge at different times. Historically - platform version
> numbers just mean that they were all released at the same time.
>
> For the most part, platforms keep changing to keep up with OS changes, but
> almost never are there features that are added across all platforms at the
> same time.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Treggiari, Leo <leo.treggiari@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  Here’s my concern regarding versions of things in Cordova.  As a
> > developer I would use Cordova to write portable applications.  Sure,
> > maybe some developers use Cordova for other reasons, but, to me at
> > least, that seems to be the primary “draw”.
> >
> >
> >
> > When writing a portable application, I want it to be as easy as
> > possible to know that what I want to use is supported everywhere I
> > want to deploy my app.
> >
> >
> >
> > Plugins have independent versions.  That makes sense.  As a developer
> > I can see what the API of plugin ‘FOO’ version ‘x.y.z’ is, and then
> > look at a table to see where it is supported.  That answers my
> > questions about APIs and how I can use them in a portable manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > I want the same to be true of ‘platform’ and Cordova CLI versions as
> > much as possible.  Maybe it is true already, but all of these
> > independent releases and different platform version numbers make me
> > nervous.  For example, If a platform releases version 3.6.0, does that
> > mean that it supports the same set of features that other platforms
> > that release 3.6.0 do?  The major.minor.patch versioning scheme makes a
> great deal of sense.
> > However, imagine all platforms started at version 3.0 with the same
> > set of features.  Then 4 separate platforms each added 5 different
> > features in an upward compatible manner and so they are now all at
> > version 3.5.0.  How does that help our users figure out how they can
> > write a portable application?
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe there is a clear definition of what platform version numbers
> > mean and I’m just not aware of it.  Maybe a CLI release is not just a
> > collection of the latest platform releases and I’m just not aware of
> > it.  It makes sense that platforms can release asynchronously, but
> > does the versioning scheme help the user figure out what is going on
> > and when and where they can expect common functionality across platforms?
> >
> >
> >
> > Leo
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* brian.leroux@gmail.com [mailto:brian.leroux@gmail.com] *On
> > Behalf Of *Brian LeRoux
> > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 5:29 PM
> > *To:* Andrew Grieve
> > *Cc:* dev@cordova.apache.org; Marcel Kinard; Treggiari, Leo
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: Independent platform release summary
> >
> >
> >
> > I meant pinning all platforms to the cli (so an update to any of the
> > platforms pushes everything up one). Anyhow this is way hard to reason
> > about. So its an improvement how again?
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2014 4:55 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> >  Is pinning not what's driving this version number discussion?
> >
> >
> >
> > Projects are generally made up of more plugins than platforms, but we
> > don't bump the CLI each time plugins are released. Maybe the simplest
> > thing to do is just have the CLI version not be influenced by platform
> > versions at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ideally, we'll finish up the work to write the platform versions in
> > config.xml, and then users won't accidentally update their platform
> > versions without explicitly doing so in their config.xml (or some
> > equivalent CLI command that updates it).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe pinning platforms and the CLI wasn't so bad after all.
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2014 2:34 PM, "Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that this is, and will be, confusing.  It was confusing
> > > today in our own discussions in our own team (who are, in general,
> > > fairly Cordova
> > > savvy) to be talking about the Android store issue related to
> > > "Cordova 3.5.1".  E.g. what did it mean to be talking about "Cordova
> > > 3.5.1", and what would a user need to do to get the fix?  What I
> > > took away was that a user would need  Cordova CLI 3.5.0-0.2.7.
> > > However, I wouldn't be
> > surprised
> > > if you told me that was wrong...
> > >
> > > Anyway, a completely different (and possibly immediately
> > > dismissible) idea.  What if a Cordova CLI version number was the
> > > same as the highest version number of the platforms supported by that
> Cordova CLI version.
> > > E.g. if the latest highest platform version was Android 3.5.1, then
> > > the Cordova CLI version would be 3.5.1.  The supported
> > > other-platform version might be lower - e.g. Windows 3.4.2 (totally
> made up version number...).
> > >
> > > That doesn't instantly solve all problems.  What if the next
> > > platform release after Android 3.5.1 was Windows 3.4.3?  Cordova CLI
> > > can't remain
> > at
> > > the highest version number.  So would Cordova CLI become 3.5.2 or
> > 3.5.1-1?
> > > Should the Windows release be 3.5.2? Are there a specific set of
> > > features associated with a specific platform major version number?
> > > It seems that
> > a
> > > platform release named 3.x.y is expected to have a certain set of
> > features
> > > implemented.  Is a platform release named 3.4.x expected to have a
> > certain
> > > set of features and a platform named 3.5.x expected to have those
> > features
> > > plus some additional feature?
> > >
> > > In general, what can a user expect these version numbers to mean.  E.g.
> > if
> > > I as an app developer want to use a particular recently added
> > > feature on multiple platforms, how do I determine which versions of
> > > which platforms support the feature and which Cordova CLI version
> gives me what I want?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but it is confusing...
> > >
> > > Leo
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marcel Kinard [mailto:cmarcelk@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 1:56 PM
> > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary
> > >
> > > If a bump to major indicates an API change, how is that visible to
> users?
> > > Do users look at the CLI version as "the version of Cordova", or are
> > > we expecting users to look at the version of every Cordova component
> > > to understand where majors got bumped? While I agree the latter is
> > > more correct technically, I think users have been and are currently
> > > assuming
> > the
> > > former. It would take some education to switch that.
> > >
> > > On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think it's necessary to bump CLI major when platforms bump
> > major.
> > > > Platforms and CLI are linked only superficially anyways.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Mime
View raw message