I'm fine with any of the options.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > <bump> > > With the release, its been a bit busy, but this issue needs some love. > > Note that someone else has commented on the same problem from a different > angle (not mobilespec) > [Commented] (CB-4889) ~ 3am this morning > > The renaming of plugins created a hole and there are a couple possible > resolutions. > > to help out in a general way (not mobilespec) > 1) smack a tag into the git repos for 3.0.x just in front of the name > change. I think you can still do that? > 2) publish plugins under the old name. might work if you use new tools with > a 3.0 project > 3) document the bug and tell people using 3.0 to switch to 3.1 or update > the plugin name references in their project > > to fix mobilespec: > 1) #1 above works > 2) re-release mobilespec for 3.0.x > 3) patch the ios project for 3.0.x to finish removing the Echo plugin files > so you can build 3.0.x with the 3.1.x mobilespec > > Thoughts? > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:30 PM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > > > Just for clarification... > > > > Testing 3.1.x works fine using 3.1 platforms, 3.1 mobilespec, and master > > plugins. > > Testing 'HEAD' works fine using master platforms, master mobilespec, and > > dev plugins. > > > > Thats all as expected. > > > > Up until a week ago, you could test 3.0.x using 3.0.x platforms, 3.0.x > > mobilespec, and master plugins. > > That no longer works. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Aren't we testing 3.1.0 with the tests that were tagged in 3.1.0? > >> Testing with 3.0.0 tests seems like you'll always have failing tests, > >> since ideally the tests should have been added with the bug (although > >> I don't know where to put platform-specific mobile-spec tests, the > >> don't really have a home and people get upset when I check them in.) > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > >> > 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 > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >
