cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Lantz <>
Subject RE: Independent platform release summary
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2014 21:41:54 GMT
Yeah agreed - Vladimir squashed the bug and what was at once point to be called 3.7.0 has been
mainly waiting on a version number.  Personally I am fine with 10.0.0 or 5.0.0 - Either send
the message that platform versions are divorced from the CLI from a versioning perspective
(though behavior is still predictable).  Leo - I think at least out of the gate devs will
likely focus on the CLI version as primary.  Basically today, the cadence version of the CLI
is what people talk about.  Heck, Cordova 3.4.1 was 3.4.0 for all platforms but iOS.  The
main message is that when you platform add android, you may see an npm pull for cordova-android@4.3.2
and that is expected.  It's just formalizing the message and allows independent platform rev'ing.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Gill [] 
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:13 PM
Cc: Michal Mocny; Marcel Kinard
Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary

I think vladimir fixed the bug. We just need to release now.

Only thing holding back the release now is consensus on the version of the cli. It seemed
like most people were leaning toward 10.0.0. Should I move forward with that? I would just
have to branch + pin deps

Leo the documentation version dropdown box would be tied to cli version. It still makes sense
to copy over platform documentation into platform repos and maybe copy it into docs during
generation time.

As for plugin pinning, plugins have more to do with platforms. I wouldn't say they aren't
tied to the cli at all. I understand your point though. So far, we haven't had any plugins
that won't work with previous versions (As far as I know). We should really fix the engine
stuff for plugins so we can keep track of what platforms they work for. I'd like us to give
warnings to users to update their plugins if newer versions are out. Cordova info should also
dump what versions of plugins you have installed if it doesn't already. In combination with
cordova --save & cordova --restore, we should be able to recommend a workflow that is
easily reproducible on any machine.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Chuck Lantz <> wrote:

> Okay - so - there's a pretty nasty CLI blocker bug right now.  Plugins 
> with dependencies don't install (this affects all platforms).  In my 
> opinion, we need to get a CLI release out really soon.  Are we closed 
> on this topic, or do we need to look at doing the old process to get 
> this out the door while we are still talking?
> There are also a series of other bugs in the currently tagged "3.6.4"
> platforms for Android, Windows, and Windows Phone 8.  These can be 
> handled independently, but the CLI bug can't.
> -Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Treggiari, Leo []
> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:23 PM
> To: Michal Mocny
> Cc: Marcel Kinard; dev
> Subject: RE: Independent platform release summary
> I'll have to admit that this seems a bit weird.  That is, independent 
> versions of the CLI and platforms, with a "Cordova release" named 
> "something" - e.g. a date?
> Imagine a user wants to know whether the new whitelist entry in 
> config.xml is supported in the versions of CLI and platforms that they 
> have - assuming they understand the distinction between the CLI and 
> platforms to begin with.  They use some command to list the versions 
> of the "things" (CLI and
> platforms) they have installed.  They go to the individual 
> documentation of the "things" and try to figure it out.
> The way the Cordova documentation works today is nice with the combo 
> box where I can select a Cordova version - 3.6.0, 3.5.0, ...  What 
> would the combo box contain in the new versioning scheme and how many 
> entries would there be?  Are the answers "dates" and "lots of dates"?  
> Or would there be no Cordova version documentation other than an 
> explanation of how to get the list of "things" you currently have and 
> where to find the documentation on them.
> To "pin" or not to "pin.
> Note that, to me, the pinning choice defines what happens when I use 
> "cordova {plugin | platform} add foo" with no specific version specified.
> I've understood, so far at least, that plugins are not pinned (an add 
> always fetches something) and platforms are pinned to a CLI version 
> (an add tells the CLI that I will be using that platform (already 
> installed) for this project).  Everything I have read which includes 1 
> book and the on-line project documentation, suggest that, even if not 
> stating it explicitly.  E.g. plugins talk about "fetching" and 
> platforms don't.  There is a way to fetch a specific version of 
> platform support.  That's good and if I do that it is up to me to 
> understand the compatibility of the specific version I requested.
> Is this true?  If so then the npm cordova behavior seems weird.  That 
> is, if I "npm install cordova" I get a set of pinned platforms.  If I 
> "npm update cordova", I get a new CLI and nothing else - i.e. not the 
> platforms that were pinned to that version of the CLI?
> Should the plugin and platform 'pin' behavior be the same?
> Should both be pinned?  Some may find this alternative "blasphemous" 
> but the core plugin versions tested with a version of the CLI could be 
> pinned to the version of the CLI.
> Should both not be pinned?  It would be more consistent and if users 
> are OK with plugins being unpinned, why not platforms?
> But maybe plugins and platforms are different.  Plugins are purely 
> run-time code.  Platforms are primarily tooling with some run-time code.
> Does that difference make the current pinning behavior the best choice.
> Maybe, but personally I would prefer both to be pinned - i.e. I 
> install a version of Cordova, and until I update it, every time I add 
> a platform or 'core' plugin, I get the same thing.
> Leo
> From: [] On Behalf Of Michal 
> Mocny
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:47 PM
> To: Treggiari, Leo
> Cc: Michal Mocny; Marcel Kinard; dev
> Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary
> With this direction, there is no single number.  Users should not 
> functionally care about CLI version, so there will just be the 
> platform versions that matter, really.
> Downstreams can of course put labels on combinations of versions, so 
> "PhoneGap 4" may be Android 4, iOS 3.8, and etc.
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Treggiari, Leo 
> < <>> wrote:
> > Did I miss anything?
> I don't think we closed on this (I had to leave the meeting a little
> early) but a remaining question is how to version what we (and users) 
> call "Cordova".  Assuming a "Cordova" version is a point in time 
> collection of the latest CLI version + platform versions + plugin 
> versions.  Is the Cordova version semver (using what algorithm with 
> respect to its contained
> components) or is that what you meant by  ""latest as of Oct 2014" or 
> something".
> Thanks,
> Leo
> -----Original Message-----
> From:<> [mailto:
><>] On Behalf Of Michal Mocny
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:13 PM
> To: Michal Mocny
> Cc: Marcel Kinard; dev
> Subject: Re: Independent platform release summary Thanks everyone for 
> participation in what was a long and grueling discussion.
> Summary of current proposal:
> - Cad-ver is dead.
> - Everything moves Sem-ver, with platforms continuing from current 
> versions and diverging over time.
> - CLI potentially gets a significant version bump to showcase this 
> reset (to 5.0 or 10.0, not yet settled)
> - Pinning default platform versions *will* continue for the time 
> being, but it will be trivial to override the default.
> - Platforms will have CLI <engine> tag equivalent (unclear yet if as 
> node peerDependency or otherwise) so devs will know when they need to 
> upgrade/downgrade CLI for non-default platform versions.
> - After a platform update, eventually CLI will release to "pin" the 
> new default, and bump its PATCH/MINOR version (unless CLI had a 
> functional update at same time that requires a larger bump).
> - After you update CLI, your existing projects don't change & platform 
> upgrades remain explicit, but you will now get warnings if your 
> installed platforms are older than the CLI pinned versions.
> - Event MAJOR changes to platforms are not MAJOR updates to the CLI, 
> unless there is an actual breaking change to the CLI tool (i.e. new 
> CLI will no longer work with the currently installed platform).
> - Platform and CLI docs have to split out and be released & versioned 
> alongside each (like plugins).  Cross references from one to the other 
> will only be needed in a few places.
> Note: The CLI-Platform compatibility story is functionally no 
> different than we have today.  If you upgrade your CLI and there is a 
> breaking change, you will have to re-create your projects or downgrade CLI again.
> Now we plan to be more explicit about it and offer warnings.
> Note: There is no concept of a "fancy-pants" release other than to say 
> "latest as of Oct 2014" or something.  Platforms don't have a single 
> common set of functionality, so CadVer was somewhat misleading already 
> in that sense.  We could introduce a concept of "API Level" for exec 
> bridge or something for use by plugins, but not sure that has value.
> What wasn't covered that came to mind after the fact:
> - When there is an update available for CLI, should we give a warning 
> to update? (this is useful, but isn't common for npm modules.  I think 
> we already do this from plugman when you try to publish plugins?).
> Did I miss anything?
> -Michal
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Michal Mocny <<mailto:
>>> wrote:
> > External Public link for those that just want to watch/chat:
> >
> >
> > Hangout link to join the conversation:
> >
> > 4I K0jsM4NlmGy5kbLsPIW3SnOsUEIQ?authuser=0&hl=en
> >
> > See you in 30 minutes.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Michal Mocny <
> <>> wrote:
> >
> >> +dev list again
> >>
> >> Not everyone could make 1pm, not everyone could make 2pm.  While I 
> >> don't think we need a full 2 hours, I'm hoping to start late and 
> >> end early -- proving opportunity people to pop in at either time 
> >> and chime
> in.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Marcel Kinard 
> >> <<>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is the expected duration 1 hour or 2 hours?
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Michal Mocny <<mailto:
>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > So it looks like Today 1-3 EST or Friday 1-3 EST are the best times.
> >>> I'm
> >>> > going to start the ball rolling to do this TODAY, but if that 
> >>> > proves
> >>> too
> >>> > short notices we'll move it to Friday.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'll email out links to hangout at 12:30 or so, and I'm hoping 
> >>> > Steven
> >>> can
> >>> > make it before 2pm since he's been most active with releases
> recently.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Michal
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message