Sounds good to me too, it’ll be great to get app bundle support added. Reorganising the docs can come shortly after. As mentioned before, just make sure there’s an issue for it so it’s not forgotten.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, at 17:18, Chris Brody wrote: > Please raise the documentation restructure issue to help us avoid forgetting > it. > > And please ping us on the individual PRs. I think we should try to get > them integrated soon. > > Please accept my apologies for the lack of response over the past few weeks. > > Thanks for all of the contributions! > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:06 PM Norman Breau <nor...@normanbreau.com> wrote: > > > > Don't want to be a bother but it's been sometime now without any activity. > > > > we have one agreement to keep both the feature and documentation PRs as > > is and to create a new issue for a larger documentation restructure for > > the android platform and no objections so far. > > > > If there is no objections I'll go ahead and create a documentation > > restructure issue as described in this thread. > > > > Thanks for your feedback, > > > > Norman > > > > On 2019/07/30 12:12:03, Jan Piotrowski wrote: > > > +1 on #1, #2 and #3 - just don't forget to create the issue that makes> > > > sure #3 will be taken care of later.> > > > > > > J> > > > > > > Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:10 Uhr schrieb Norman Breau> > > > :> > > > >> > > > > Hello devs!> > > > >> > > > > I am writing to gather feedback on the new feature to support > > building> > > > > the new android packaging format: android bundles. Below are the > > links> > > > > to the PRs, but I'll try to provide a brief summary below, then I'll> > > > > provide my personal opinion.> > > > >> > > > > Feature PR: https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/764> > > > > Documentation PR: https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/1009> > > > >> > > > > What invoked moving the discussion here is the use of the packageType> > > > > property/command line argument. During the course of the PR, it was> > > > > decided to mimic the iOS platform use of the packageType build.json> > > > > property to decide whether to build an APK or a AAB (bundle) file. It> > > > > was then found that for iOS, the packageType build property is a> > > > > property mostly related to signing and therefore, the documentation > > for> > > > > this is under "Signing an App".> > > > >> > > > > For android, building either the APK or a bundle has no relation to> > > > > signing, all other build.json properties available for android is a> > > > > "signing" property. Because of this, the android documentation for> > > > > build.json properties is also organized under a "Signing an App"> > > > > section. As you might have guess, the addition of a new packageType> > > > > property for android, a property that is more of a "building" > > property> > > > > rather than a "signing" property makes it a little awkward to > > simply add> > > > > to the current documentation without some major reorganizing.> > > > >> > > > > So what requires discussion is:> > > > >> > > > > 1) Should android reuse packageType, even if the purpose is slightly> > > > > different for iOS?> > > > >> > > > > 2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", how should the android > > documentation be> > > > > reorganized as to not hide a "build" property under a "Signing an > > App"> > > > > section?> > > > >> > > > > 3) If #2 is answered yes, should this re-organizing be deferred to a> > > > > future PR to get app bundle support out as soon as possible?> > > > >> > > > > Below now is how I would favour proceeding> > > > >> > > > > The answer to #1, should be "yes" because the metaphor I think > > applies> > > > > just as well for Android as it does for iOS. While iOS as I > > understand,> > > > > all packageTypes builds an IPA file, they are just signed > > differently,> > > > > and to be consumed differenetly based on the selected packageType. As> > > > > for Android, a packageType will build their own different formats, > > but> > > > > they are still packages, just formatted to be differently to be> > > > > consumed differently, based on their packageType.> > > > >> > > > > Thus leading to question #2, I think a "Building the app" section > > should> > > > > be added, which will mimic the format of the existing "Signing the > > app"> > > > > section, but will only include properties or flags related to > > building> > > > > the app. I have provided an example at> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/1009#issuecomment-512227371> > > > >> > > > > Leading to #3, another contributor have suggested to simply add the> > > > > documentation for app bundles in the current documentation format > > (under> > > > > "Signing the app" section) and defer adding the new build section to> > > > > another PR. The intention for this is to get the feature out as > > soon as> > > > > possible as the feature request is somewhat highly requested (Over 43> > > > > positive responses on the initial feature request ticket). I don't> > > > > really have a strong opinion one way or another therefore my action > > will> > > > > be largely what everybody else thinks I should do here.> > > > >> > > > > Looking for everyones feedback,> > > > > Thanks> > > > >> > > > > P.S. this is my first major contribution, I hope I didn't make this > > too> > > > > long and I hoped I explained myself clearly.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org> > > > >> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
