+1
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1++ > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> +1! >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM, James Jong <wjamesj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > +1 Making it easier and less confusing for our new contributors is good. >> > -James Jong >> > >> > On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > > +1! Certainly it's causing us a lot of pain still. Moving to releasing >> > off >> > > of master seems like it would work fine. It's been working fine for >> > > CLI/plugman, and they move much faster. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Braden Shepherdson < >> > bra...@chromium.org>wrote: >> > > >> > >> We originally needed the plugin releases to be on the master branch >> > because >> > >> there was no way to have CLI/Plugman fetch from other branches. That >> is >> > no >> > >> longer the case. Further, you're correct that the registry's tarballs >> is >> > >> the primary source now. Even if someone does have a git dependency >> > >> somewhere, they can specify a branch (actually any ref) in the >> > <dependency> >> > >> tag. Likewise the command line. >> > >> >> > >> I'm all for moving development into the master branch. >> > >> >> > >> Braden >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Bryan Higgins < >> br...@bryanhiggins.net >> > >>> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> +1 >> > >>> >> > >>> I think the registry has been around for long enough that the vast >> > >> majority >> > >>> of users won't be installing directly from git. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ian Clelland < >> iclell...@chromium.org >> > >>>> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> I totally agree that we should do this. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I think that once the current plugin release is complete, I can set >> up >> > >>> the >> > >>>> branches so that the master branch is for development, and we can go >> > >> from >> > >>>> there. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Is it a requirement that plugins be tagged in git for npm to >> function? >> > >> I >> > >>>> thought that the plugins were uploaded, zipped, to our couch server, >> > >> for >> > >>>> each release, and that there was no further communication with the >> git >> > >>>> repository? It shouldn't be a problem to go back and make sure >> they're >> > >>>> properly tagged, but I'm just wondering if it's still a necessity. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Ian >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> I am seeing more and more pull requests that aren't easy merges >> > >> because >> > >>>>> people are starting their work from the master branch, and not dev. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> We discussed *a long time ago* that at some point, we would >> consider >> > >>>> master >> > >>>>> to be the bleeding edge of each plugin, and we could then get rid >> of >> > >>> the >> > >>>>> dev branches. The requirements to make this possible included, >> > >> using a >> > >>>>> branch/tag for every npm release of the plugin, and making sure >> that >> > >>>> plugin >> > >>>>> dependencies were correctly mapped. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Has anyone given this any more thought, and do we have any idea >> when >> > >> we >> > >>>>> will make the switch? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Cheers, >> > >>>>> Jesse >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> @purplecabbage >> > >>>>> risingj.com >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > >>
