In seriousness I am excited! We get to talk about everything that happened this past year. (Lots.)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > Couldn't find the thread, but I also thought there we had discussed having > the 3.0 release == moving to CLI & having plugins separated. > > I know PhoneGap Day is in July, and I agree 3.0 for PGD is a great goal, > but a major version number bump shouldn't indicate that time has elapsed. > There should be some excitement behind it! :) > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> No no. You must be mistaking us w/ the node project. We're shipping 3 >> in July yo. >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Braden Shepherdson >> <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it >> > comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8 >> > followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about? >> > >> > Braden >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> > >> >> To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're >> >> working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not >> >> build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. >> >> Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make >> >> it. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson < >> bra...@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving >> to >> >> > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and >> the >> >> > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into >> >> plugins >> >> > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps >> don't >> >> > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. >> >> > >> >> > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep >> >> > versioning them to the tools. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Offline happens! >> >> >> >> >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to >> >> >> that thinking will be the trick. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the >> >> version >> >> >> of >> >> >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which >> >> can >> >> >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not >> sure >> >> that >> >> >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are >> right, >> >> >> this >> >> >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -Michal >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Good question. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ >> >> core >> >> >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize >> >> >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to >> >> >> >> default to none. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats >> open >> >> >> too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> >> agri...@chromium.org> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still >> >> work >> >> >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you >> >> >> suggesting >> >> >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and >> cache >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> offline works. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner < >> gtan...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any >> idea >> >> what >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson < >> >> bra...@chromium.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as >> >> you >> >> >> >> wrote. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform >> that's >> >> >> running >> >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature >> >> request >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> doc. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> >> >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory >> can >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Braden >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm >> package >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x >> === >> >> >> >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> We did this because: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - has to work offline >> >> >> >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> >> >> >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't >> >> really a >> >> >> >> huge >> >> >> >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already >> >> >> achieved >> >> >> >> by >> >> >> >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be >> >> >> improved >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin >> >> integration. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
