cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: 3.6 cordova plugin versions
Date Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:05:59 GMT
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Fischer, Paul A <paul.a.fischer@intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi Michal,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. What you describe is what I expected, and I
> totally understand the issues around trying to tightly specify what version
> works where, getting independent plugin developers to follow through with
> testing, etc. It's an impossible matrix to maintain. :(
>
> In essence, based on the process you outline, I am assuming something like
> the following badly formatted timeline of releases:
>
> -- cordova X.Y release --
> Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed by individual version
> (provided in release notes/blog)
> Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
> Core Cordova plugin B gets updated
> Core Cordova plugin C gets updated
> Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
> Core Cordova plugin D gets updated
> Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
> ...etc.
> -- cordova X.Z release --
> Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed (provided in release
> notes/blog)
> ...similar to above
> ...etc.
> -- cordova Y.A release --
>
> So one can generally "assume" that those core plugin versions listed in
> the release notes of a Cordova framework, up to those versions listed in
> the next Cordova framework release are "safe" to use with the immediately
> preceding release of the framework.
>

I think thats a good conservative conclusion to make.  In practice, newer
plugin updates are quite compatible with older platform versions and often
contain valuable fixes -- but you probably don't want to assume that by
default.


>
> I ask only because our users are not all sophisticated Cordova users (I
> represent Intel and the XDK) and trying to come up with some general
> guidelines. They are limited to the Cordova CLI versions that we provide
> build support for, so they can't just update the CLI to meet the needs of a
> specific plugin.
>

Fair enough.  We've also toyed with community supplied metadata -- where
you can flag a plugin as *not* working, and assume it works unless it is
flagged.  This would shift the burden over to the community / testers,
instead of the plugin authors.  But this was just brainstorming, there is
no work on this yet.  (I bring it up in case this appeals to you as a
project).


>
> Thanks for the quick replies, sorry mine was so long in coming,
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
> Mocny
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 09:00
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: 3.6 cordova plugin versions
>
> Paul:
>
> You are right.  When we do a platform release, we test with the latest
> plugins to make sure the platform isn't breaking things.  When we do a
> plugins release, we test with the latest platforms to make sure the plugins
> are breaking things.
>
> In theory, we should know when plugins depend on a certain minimum
> platform version, and even have a plugin.xml tag to specify this
> (<engine>), though its a bit indirect and in practice I'm not sure that the
> requirements are well specified (many plugins just say >= 3.0.0).
>
>
> I think whether you consider this a problem depends a bit on your workflow
> and cordova development philosophy.  Namely, do you make any native
> platform changes directly in platforms/?  If so, upgrading to the latest of
> everything all the time is a burden, and you may want well specified
> compatibility.  On the other hand, if your platforms/ are treated as build
> artefacts, and all your work is in hooks/ plugins/ and www/, its quite
> trivial to upgrade platforms, sample different plugin versions, and
> experiment.
>
> In theory, we want to support both flows.  In practice, its quite tedious
> and relies on plugin authors to put in the legwork, which doesn't usually
> happen.  If you were interested in testing plugins on older cordova
> platform versions, or perhaps you already maintain a list, that would be
> useful to share with us.  However long term, I'd personally prefer to see
> people less hesitant to just upgrade often, and that has certainly been the
> trend.
>
> -Michal
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ray Camden <raycamde@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Just being annoying. ;) I can see this type of question though being
> > something users will bring up.
> >
> > On 9/30/14, 9:46 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >He didnt ask that question, but Ray: yes.
> > >
> > >On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Ray Camden <raycamde@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Does it make sense to clarify that statement though? Not *every*
> > >>plugin is  tested like this, just the ³Core² set of Cordova plugins.
> > >>If someone has a  random plugin for Cowbell, there is no guarantee
> > >>that it will work on  _any_ release, right? (I know we were talking
> > >>about core plugins, but I  just wanted to be sure.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/30/14, 9:04 AM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> >
> >
>

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