+1 as well. This will break Cordova 3.0 though. Cordova versions >= 3.1 are fine because they support registries. Cordova 3.0 only supports git and can only fetch from master branches.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >
