I believe that will be OK - testing it out now. It still probably deserves some documentation somewhere that the previously stated relationships don't work anymore, and that any plugin references in a 3.0.x project need attention.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > Would it fix it to use mobile-spec from master when testing 3.0.x? > Mobile-spec generally stays in sync with the plugins more so than the > platforms, so it would make sense to me to use mobile-spec at master if > using plugins from master/dev. > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:40 PM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > > > The issue is the that stated methodology for getting the right versions > to > > test is: > > * for release, get plugins from the master branch and platforms, tests > etc > > from the release branch (3.0.x) > > * for tip of tree, get plugins from the dev branch and platforms, tests > etc > > from the master branch > > Since the rename was done to the plugins on master (appropriate for > 3.1.x) > > that no longer leaves a place to get plugins that are 'compatible' with > > 3.0.x > > > > The issue that I am pointing out right now is that the file: > > cordova-mobile-spec/dependencies-plugin/plugin.xml > > explicitly names the plugins with the old name in the 3.0.x branch of > > mobile-spec. so it breaks. > > > > If a developer has a similar references to their 3.0.x plugins, it will > > also fail next time they build a fresh new project. > > > > For CI it means that all tests of the 3.0.x branch now fail. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > In the past I've used #3. When checking out code to test, I try to get > > all > > > the assets from the same branch / time period. But I may be skewed in > > that > > > approach, since our product that embeds Cordova has a snapshot of the > > > platforms and plugins, and doesn't get updates from the online repos. > > > > > > Does what you are saying infer that the rename of the plugins is a > > > breaking change? And needs to have some verbage in the Upgrading > guides? > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, David Kemp <drk...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Summary: Due to the renaming of plugins, there is no longer a > sensible > > > way > > > > to test 3.0.x > > > > > > > > Detail: > > > > The process to test 3.0.x is to get platforms, mobile-spec, etc from > > > 3.0.x > > > > and plugins from master. With the change on plugin names (remove > core) > > > the > > > > 3.0.x mobile-spec still refers to the names with core , but the > master > > > > branch of the plugins no longer have that name. > > > > > > > > Possible resolutions: > > > > 1) never mind - mobilespec for 3.0.x is broken, it will be fixed in > > 3.1.x > > > > 2) cherrypick the change to mobilespec dependencies back to 3.0.x > > > > 3) find some other way to get the older plugins available to test. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > David Kemp > > > > > > > > >
