Hi Michal,

Thanks for the clarification. What you describe is what I expected, and I 
totally understand the issues around trying to tightly specify what version 
works where, getting independent plugin developers to follow through with 
testing, etc. It's an impossible matrix to maintain. :(

In essence, based on the process you outline, I am assuming something like the 
following badly formatted timeline of releases:

-- cordova X.Y release --
Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed by individual version (provided 
in release notes/blog)
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
Core Cordova plugin B gets updated
Core Cordova plugin C gets updated
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
Core Cordova plugin D gets updated
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
...etc.
-- cordova X.Z release --
Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed (provided in release notes/blog)
...similar to above
...etc.
-- cordova Y.A release --

So one can generally "assume" that those core plugin versions listed in the 
release notes of a Cordova framework, up to those versions listed in the next 
Cordova framework release are "safe" to use with the immediately preceding 
release of the framework.

I ask only because our users are not all sophisticated Cordova users (I 
represent Intel and the XDK) and trying to come up with some general 
guidelines. They are limited to the Cordova CLI versions that we provide build 
support for, so they can't just update the CLI to meet the needs of a specific 
plugin.

Thanks for the quick replies, sorry mine was so long in coming,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: mmo...@google.com [mailto:mmo...@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal Mocny
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 09:00
To: dev
Subject: Re: 3.6 cordova plugin versions

Paul:

You are right.  When we do a platform release, we test with the latest plugins 
to make sure the platform isn't breaking things.  When we do a plugins release, 
we test with the latest platforms to make sure the plugins are breaking things.

In theory, we should know when plugins depend on a certain minimum platform 
version, and even have a plugin.xml tag to specify this (<engine>), though its 
a bit indirect and in practice I'm not sure that the requirements are well 
specified (many plugins just say >= 3.0.0).


I think whether you consider this a problem depends a bit on your workflow and 
cordova development philosophy.  Namely, do you make any native platform 
changes directly in platforms/?  If so, upgrading to the latest of everything 
all the time is a burden, and you may want well specified compatibility.  On 
the other hand, if your platforms/ are treated as build artefacts, and all your 
work is in hooks/ plugins/ and www/, its quite trivial to upgrade platforms, 
sample different plugin versions, and experiment.

In theory, we want to support both flows.  In practice, its quite tedious and 
relies on plugin authors to put in the legwork, which doesn't usually happen.  
If you were interested in testing plugins on older cordova platform versions, 
or perhaps you already maintain a list, that would be useful to share with us.  
However long term, I'd personally prefer to see people less hesitant to just 
upgrade often, and that has certainly been the trend.

-Michal

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ray Camden <rayca...@adobe.com> wrote:

> Just being annoying. ;) I can see this type of question though being 
> something users will bring up.
>
> On 9/30/14, 9:46 AM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >He didnt ask that question, but Ray: yes.
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Ray Camden <rayca...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Does it make sense to clarify that statement though? Not *every* 
> >>plugin is  tested like this, just the ³Core² set of Cordova plugins. 
> >>If someone has a  random plugin for Cowbell, there is no guarantee 
> >>that it will work on  _any_ release, right? (I know we were talking 
> >>about core plugins, but I  just wanted to be sure.)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/30/14, 9:04 AM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
>

Reply via email to