I'm in agreement here. The registry is the discovery point for the plugin. People may not use Github (ourselves included) for many plugins.
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > I think we want to steer people to the plugin registry rather than github. > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org > >wrote: > > > I was referring to 'egde' docs for Cordova itself; there certainly aren't > > any 'edge' docs on the plugin registry, since by design it only knows > about > > released plugins, and as you say, edge docs there would require watching > > repos, which seems out-of-scope. > > > > Since we already *do* have edge docs on > > http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/edge/, I was just considering whether > we > > should try to link those to the corresponding plugin docs on GitHub, > rather > > than linking to only released plugins. > > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > > > I think generally mapping [plugin_id, engine_version] -> > [plugin_version] > > > sounds like a useful plugin registry feature to support, especially so > > that > > > you can install latest compatible plugin versions using old CLI > versions. > > > We can leverage that same mapping for docs exactly as you describe. > > > > > > Regarding "edge" docs, are they necessary at all? If you want to > > install a > > > plugin from source, you can read the docs from source. If we want to > > > publish "edge" docs because the latest plugin release had typos, we > > should > > > consider doing point releases for docs fixes (unlikely, but hey). If > we > > > tell users to just read "edge" for highest quality docs, they may be > > > reading docs on api's that don't apply to any actual release. > > > > > > Anyway, if we do want "edge", it would require watching/cloning git > > repos, > > > and I think the registry right now only uses uploaded tarballs. A > > low-road > > > solution could be to have nightly cron job that uploads an "edge" > tarball > > > for core plugins? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I was considering doing two things: > > > > > > > > 1. Point the edge docs back to GitHub/master, so that edge doesn't > have > > > to > > > > point to released plugin docs. (I think this is more in the _spirit_ > of > > > the > > > > edge docs, but it means more work to actually release versioned docs) > > > > > > > > 2. Add a feature to plugins.cordova.io that could return the best > > > matching > > > > plugin version, based on an engine version in the URL. That way, the > > > 3.4.0 > > > > docs could point to something like " > > > > > > > > > > http://plugins.cordova.io/#/package/org.apache.cordova.camera;engine=3.4.0 > > > > " > > > > and get the docs page for the best version of the camera plugin for > > > *that* > > > > cordova release. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thats will be easy to pretend (just kidding! ;). Yes, the plugin > > > > registry > > > > > shows the docs as they exist at the time of the plugin release, so > > next > > > > > release the docs will be up to date. > > > > > > > > > > The primary benefit here is that the plugin registry has a version > > > > switcher > > > > > on the side, and you'll get to see the docs as they existed for > that > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > (for the future, we could consider adding "edge" versions for core > > > > plugins > > > > > on plugin registry. Not for installs, but just to list the latest > > > docs) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ray Camden <rayca...@adobe.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So... pretend I'm dumb here. Do I need to do anything? Will it > just > > > be > > > > > > updated in the next plugin release? > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > > From: mmo...@google.com <mmo...@google.com> on behalf of Michal > > > Mocny > > > > < > > > > > > mmo...@chromium.org> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:50 AM > > > > > > To: Michal Mocny > > > > > > Cc: dev > > > > > > Subject: Re: Docs for plugins > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray, Yeah seems file plugin @c1a1052 was tagged for 1.1.0 release > > 13 > > > > days > > > > > > ago, you patched docs after that tag @abcaf70 12 days ago, and > > plugin > > > > was > > > > > > actually released with @e9efe65 7 days ago. You just missed the > > > window > > > > > > narrowly! > > > > > > > > > > > > -Michal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Michal Mocny < > mmo...@chromium.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the plugin docs reflect what was bundled with the > > latest > > > > > plugin > > > > > > > release -- perhaps your recent changes were not released yet? > Or > > > has > > > > > > > something gotten lost in the recent shuffle with dev/master > > > branches? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its true, though, that for core plugins our registry links to > the > > > > > > official > > > > > > > apache repos and not the github mirrors, and the official repo > > > links > > > > do > > > > > > not > > > > > > > have a pretty renderers for markdown docs. Not sure what we > want > > > to > > > > do > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Ray Camden < > rayca...@adobe.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just noticed that the links for plugins from > docs.cordova.iogo > > > > to > > > > > a > > > > > > >> new page ( > > > > > http://plugins.cordova.io/#/package/org.apache.cordova.fileas > > > > > > >> an example). The docs for this one in particular seem wrong. I > > > > > recently > > > > > > did > > > > > > >> a small mod to add the error codes to the docs, and I'm not > > seeing > > > > it > > > > > > here. > > > > > > >> Mistake? Do I need to make a new PR on the repo? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Related - why is the link to the github version gone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
