+1, I agree on the separate repositories. I still contend that nothing should need to be 'built' and there should be NO dependencies on the plugins from cordova-js, ( aside from device.js + network.js which are both required pre device ready, and I think should remain in the cordova-js repo )
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for separate repositories. Should take a bit longer than normal to > package a release but not too long especially if the repos are pulled from > a local source (ie no network overhead). > I'd be ok to ship a set of default plugins and give the ability for people > to build their 'own' Cordova. > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm in favor of discreet plugin repos. It shouldn't effect a release > > if we automate install/remove and add to the Coho tool... though > > perhaps this is a naive assumption. > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Thought it'd be worth having a discussion around whether we want a > > separate > > > repo for each core plugin or not. > > > > > > As far as I can see, we can either have all core plugins in one repo, > or > > > have each in it's own and call them: > > > cordova-plugin-file > > > cordova-plugin-network > > > cordova-plugin-media > > > etc... > > > > > > I think my preference would be to have them as their own repos so that > it > > > will be easier to add/remove lists of plugins to the "which ones are > > core" > > > list. It will also let us version them separately (if we want to do > > this). > > > > > > The downside is that it may take longer to perform a release? Would we > > even > > > bundle the plugins with releases anyways though? > > > -- @purplecabbage risingj.com
