Also, it will only "break" new plugin installs.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org>wrote: > To be clear, this is just referring to Cordova CLI versions 3.0.0 - 3.0.4, > I think. By version 3.0.5, CLI had a dependency on plugman 0.10.0, which > included the "plugman-registry" branch. (We didn't push anything to the > registry until 3.1 was released, but we made sure that the infrastructure > was ready a while before). > > If it is possible to use later versions of cordova-cli on a project that > uses Cordova 3.0 engines, then we should be clear that we're not breaking > Cordova 3.0 projects; just the oldest versions of the CLI, which developers > should be encouraged to upgrade in any case. > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > Didn't know about npm deprecate. Makes sense to me! > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Can we deprecate version 3.0? > > > https://www.npmjs.org/doc/cli/npm-deprecate.html > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> +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 > > >> > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >
