Releasing options for 3.5.0. Option 1: Release like we always have. * One zip containing zips of the platforms, js, docs, cli
Option 2: Break up platforms/tools/plugins This is the option we are going towards with independent releases. * Platforms go in the platforms directory * Tools in the tools directory * Plugins in the plugins directory * where does cordova-js go? Tools directory? Since this will also be released on npm, we need to release it on dist somewhere as well. * do we need/want to release docs still? If yes, we should create a top level docs directory * cordova.io downloads section will need to reflect the change You can see both option 1 & 2 at [1] I personally like option 2 since this is the direction we are going towards with independent releases. All the platforms will be released on npm once the 3.5.0 vote concludes. I don't see much value in having one zip that has zips of all of our platforms, cli, js + docs anymore. [1] http://www.apache.org/dist/cordova/ On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Ian Clelland <[email protected]> wrote: > At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while sorting > things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it would > have to be to be in 3.5.0. > > (The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the > same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but > it's a bit more complicated than that now :( ) > > For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until it's > ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for one > feature. > > Ian > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future > > release. > > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that > this > > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and > > any > > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, > sounds > > > like it's not quite there yet. > > > > > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till > > > Monday? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for > 3.5.0; > > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by > > > abstracting > > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface. > > > >> > > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or > > > non-static > > > >> fields on interfaces... > > > >> > > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, > > then > > > we > > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet. > > > I'll > > > >> have to let you know later today. > > > > > > > > >
