First sorry for my stupid questions :-)
Why do we need to mess with this versionCode?
How a native developer creating a new Android App today using Android
Studio and gradle handle this?
Should that help us determined how it should work for Cordova Apps?
Can we come with a similar system, or no system, or it's user space where
they can put a version code they want to use in config.xml in conjunction
with of the version string (i.e. 1.0.0) that they are already using in.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, so, I'm dealing with this code, which pisses me off to no end:
>
> if (Boolean.valueOf(cdvBuildMultipleApks)) {
> productFlavors {
> armv7 {
> versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 2
> ndk {
> abiFilters "armeabi-v7a", ""
> }
> }
> x86 {
> versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 4
> ndk {
> abiFilters "x86", ""
> }
> }
> all {
> ndk {
> abiFilters "all", ""
> }
> }
> }
> } else if (!cdvVersionCode) {
> def minSdkVersion = cdvMinSdkVersion ?:
> privateHelpers.extractIntFromManifest("minSdkVersion")
> // Vary versionCode by the two most common API levels:
> // 14 is ICS, which is the lowest API level for many apps.
> // 20 is Lollipop, which is the lowest API level for the updatable
> system webview.
> if (minSdkVersion >= 20) {
> defaultConfig.versionCode += 9
> } else if (minSdkVersion >= 14) {
> defaultConfig.versionCode += 8
> }
> }
>
> So, right now if you're not using Crosswalk at all, your default version
> code will be 18 instead of 1, and 28 for the second version if you aren't
> using Crosswalk. I can see why people would build multiple APKs per
> architectures, but if you're building multiple APKs for different versions
> of Android, we've all done something wrong and we never asked for this
> feature to be added to Cordova. The whole point of Cordova is to work
> across multiple platforms, and that does include multiple versions of
> Android.
>
> However, since this stupid code was added back in 4.0.x, I'm wondering if
> anyone is relying on this code before I rip it out and have version codes
> mean exactly what they're supposed to mean. That means that when you build
> and release your first app without using Crosswalk, your application
> version code will be 1. Not 18, not 19, but 1. Then when you build
> another version, that version will be 2, and so on.
>
> What do people think of this code going away? Crosswalk will probably have
> to have the different version codes, since I think us defining a system
> could work better than leaving this up to the user and having things go
> horribly sideways when people are trying to keep track of whether they
> released an arm or x86 binary, since we already decided to take
> responsibility for this.
>
> So, feedback on this would be good.
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Darryl Pogue <dar...@dpogue.ca> wrote:
>
> > Not intentionally on my end, but when I add the CrossWalk plugin I
> > seem to get two APKs as output (one for armv7, one for x86).
> >
> > On 18 February 2016 at 11:05, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey
> > >
> > > Based on the feedback on those two issues, and other places, I think
> that
> > > most hated change from Cordova-Android 4.0 that we didn't fix in
> > > Cordova-Android 5.0 was the fact that we have an undocumented way of
> > > generating an arbitrary build number that makes absolutely no sense.
> > > Furthermore, this screws up people's automated builds, and can cause
> the
> > > version code to reach MAX_INT.
> > >
> > > If you want to know why nobody has touched it until now, it's because
> > > everyone hates working with Gradle. I can say the exact same thing
> about
> > > why we're not using ProGuard.
> > >
> > > Now, I'm starting on my flensing of the gradle files that we have in
> > here,
> > > trying to figure out what we can rip out and I'm wondering if anyone is
> > > actually using the multiple APK generation before I remove it. If
> people
> > > are, I'm going to have to figure out another way for this to happen,
> > > because this is definitely breaking people's applications, and using
> > random
> > > hooks isn't a good answer.
> > >
> > > So, is anyone using this, or can this feature die!
> > >
> > > Joe
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
> >
> >
>
