Hey Andrew, I posted in here before reading the getting organized for 3.0 thread. I retract my statement that every plugin needs issues and agree with plugins being tested by platform maintainers before they tag their respective platforms. I created one issue to tag all of the plugins once platforms are tagged.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, since we're stuck with coho if we want to get this done this week, > how do you get coho to check out a branch of all the plugins? > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> We will need to add issues for tagging plugins. > > > > What's your reasoning? > > > > > > > >> I can create the issue and > >> tag the plugins. I figure for now, plugins will use same tagging > process as > >> other repos. > >> > > And that process is? > > > > For the RC - it's trivial to create release branches and an RC tag. coho > > can do it in bulk. The main question is what criteria should we use to > > determine whether a plugin is ready for tagging? For an RC, we could just > > tag with whatever's there , but then it's not really adding any meaning > on > > top of the release branch existing. I think the thing that separates the > > release branch from the tag is some testing. > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Created the issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4208 > >> > > >> > On 7/15/13 11:56 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >So, for tagging today, can we get the issues setup and the JS tagged > >> > >at least? We can somehow muddle through this RC1. > >> > > > >> > >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> > >> I'd say we could consider the core plugins as build ephemera not > >> > >> unlike docs or automations. Really cordova-cli is the main point of > >> > >> interaction between us and our developer community. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org> > >> > >>wrote: > >> > >>> The Apache Way was a part of what I was thinking as well. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Also - it occurs to me that we'll have to change our voting system > >> > >>>when it > >> > >>> comes to plugins since each plugin repo should have a +1 from each > >> > >>>platform > >> > >>> maintainer, and can be tagged only once. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Don't we have to release a zip on an Apache server because of > "The > >> > >>>> Apache Way"? That's why I thought we had to release artifacts, > not > >> > >>>> for people, but for process. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> > wrote: > >> > >>>> > I don't mind this but it seems like a lot of work to release > >> > >>>>artifacts > >> > >>>> > for...who? End users we want to encourage to use the tooling > >> golden > >> > >>>> > path for creating projects, working w/ plugins, etc. > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > If anything I'd rather we *only* distribute cordova-cli as the > >> > >>>> > canonical repo and entry point for usage and treat the rest as > our > >> > >>>> > project build artifacts/ephemera. > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > Way easier. Way more in tune w/ actual usage. > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Andrew Grieve > >> > >>>><agri...@chromium.org> > >> > >>>> wrote: > >> > >>>> >> Definitely would like to get everything Release / Versioning > >> > >>>>related > >> > >>>> >> documented on the wiki. The most complete source right now is: > >> > >>>> >> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases We should add > >> > >>>>another > >> > >>>> page > >> > >>>> >> for versioning once we settle on what to do with plugins. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> Right now only CLI & Plugman are distributed on npm and are > >> > >>>>versioned > >> > >>>> >> separately. Nothing else is on npm though, so package.json > isn't > >> > >>>>used. > >> > >>>> >> Instead VERSION files hold the version. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> I've decided I didn't like my previous proposal of not > updating > >> > >>>>versions > >> > >>>> >> when things don't change because it will make it harder to > check > >> > >>>>out a > >> > >>>> >> version of Cordova. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> New Proposal: > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> 1. Each Cordova release will include: > >> > >>>> >> - A copy of every repo, including all core plugins. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> 2. Each plugin repo will get a release branch even if the code > >> > >>>>hasn't > >> > >>>> >> changed. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> 3. Each plugin's version will match the Cordova version > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> 4. Plugins can have separate point releases if they are > important > >> > >>>> updates > >> > >>>> >> to them. These will be in the form of tags along the release > >> > >>>>branch. > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> 5. As soon as release branches are created, we change the > VERSION > >> > >>>>file > >> > >>>> and > >> > >>>> >> re-tag master to a -dev version of the next release (e.g. > >> > >>>>3.1.0-dev) > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Carlos Santana > >> > >>>><csantan...@gmail.com > >> > >>>> >wrote: > >> > >>>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> Dumb questions > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> Does the package.json {version:""} field needs to be updated > on > >> > >>>>every > >> > >>>> >>> commit to the repo? > >> > >>>> >>> (meaning depending what is the commit, then the major, > minor, > >> > >>>>patch, > >> > >>>> or > >> > >>>> >>> extension gets updated) > >> > >>>> >>> Does the npm registry support pre-release and build metadata > >> (i.e. > >> > >>>> x.7.z.92 > >> > >>>> >>> in 2.9.1-x.7.z.92)? > >> > >>>> >>> If this true, Does npm knows to install the latest stable > >> > >>>>version, but > >> > >>>> user > >> > >>>> >>> can request a pre-release by specifying the version that it > >> wants > >> > >>>>@2 > >> > >>>> >>> .9.1-x.7.z.92 > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> Refs: > >> > >>>> >>> http://semver.org/ > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, > >> > >>>> >>> 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a > >> > >>>> backwards-compatible > >> > >>>> >>> manner, and > >> > >>>> >>> 3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug > >> fixes. > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> *Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are > >> > >>>>available as > >> > >>>> >>> extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.* > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Carlos Santana > >> > >>>><csantan...@gmail.com > >> > >>>> >>> >wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > About versioning maybe we should open a > >> > >>>>mail-thread/jira/wikipage > >> > >>>> (not > >> > >>>> >>> > familiar with process yet :-)) > >> > >>>> >>> > To discuss and be clear what is the guideline/process to > >> version > >> > >>>> >>> different > >> > >>>> >>> > components. > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > Some thoughts (maybe this is already well understood and > >> > >>>>documented > >> > >>>> in > >> > >>>> >>> > wiki): > >> > >>>> >>> > - Lets follow semantic versioning as much as possible for > ALL > >> > >>>> components > >> > >>>> >>> > (i.e. plugins, core, cli, plugman, platform, repos) > >> > >>>> >>> > - Document the deliverables/releases channels (i.e. npm, > >> apache > >> > >>>> zip/dist, > >> > >>>> >>> > git repo) > >> > >>>> >>> > - Maintain the versions in sync (package.json {version:""}, > >> git > >> > >>>>tag) > >> > >>>> >>> > tag/hash should match what's posted in npm registry? > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > --Carlos > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Andrew Grieve > >> > >>>><agri...@chromium.org > >> > >>>> >>> >wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> Coho started as just a tool to package, but has grown > into a > >> > >>>>tool > >> > >>>> that: > >> > >>>> >>> >> a) helps work with multiple repos > >> > >>>> >>> >> b) documents our release process in working code. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> re windows tagging - As of the last release bug template, > >> we're > >> > >>>> tagging > >> > >>>> >>> >> each branch individually either via coho or not, so no > issue > >> > >>>>there. > >> > >>>> It > >> > >>>> >>> >> won't be tagged by coho unless someone does it > explicitly. I > >> > >>>>think > >> > >>>> we > >> > >>>> >>> can > >> > >>>> >>> >> still use it to create the windows release branches, > since if > >> > >>>>it > >> > >>>> messes > >> > >>>> >>> up > >> > >>>> >>> >> we can just fix what it missed (but all it does is update > >> > >>>>VERSION > >> > >>>> and > >> > >>>> >>> >> cordova.js). > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> As for plugins, I've only used CLI by pointing at > directories > >> > >>>>so > >> > >>>> far, > >> > >>>> >>> but > >> > >>>> >>> >> I > >> > >>>> >>> >> was under the impression that if you give it a URL, you > have > >> to > >> > >>>> give it > >> > >>>> >>> a > >> > >>>> >>> >> repo + subdirectory + hash/tag combination. If it's > currently > >> > >>>>just > >> > >>>> >>> >> installing from master, I think that's a bad default and > >> should > >> > >>>> instead > >> > >>>> >>> go > >> > >>>> >>> >> by a tag (npm goes by the "stable" tag by default I > believe). > >> > >>>>So... > >> > >>>> we > >> > >>>> >>> >> will > >> > >>>> >>> >> need an explicit action for commits to a plugin to be > picked > >> > >>>>up by > >> > >>>> >>> >> plugman. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> How about if a plugin has a commit that is urgent, it > gets a > >> > >>>>point > >> > >>>> >>> release > >> > >>>> >>> >> right away. Otherwise, it waits for the next Cordova > release > >> > >>>>cycle. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Jesse > >> > >>>><purplecabb...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>> wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > re: COHO > >> > >>>> >>> >> > I cannot guarantee the output of windows/phone releases > if > >> > >>>>they > >> > >>>> are > >> > >>>> >>> >> tagged > >> > >>>> >>> >> > and updated via coho. I like the idea of having > continuous > >> > >>>> >>> integration, > >> > >>>> >>> >> but > >> > >>>> >>> >> > this is not there yet. I would prefer for now to > manually > >> > >>>>update > >> > >>>> and > >> > >>>> >>> >> tag > >> > >>>> >>> >> > wp7+wp8+windows8 repos because I do not currently trust > the > >> > >>>>magic > >> > >>>> in > >> > >>>> >>> >> coho, > >> > >>>> >>> >> > and do not have time to go and understand all of the > magic. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > @purplecabbage > >> > >>>> >>> >> > risingj.com > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven Gill < > >> > >>>> stevengil...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > Plugin versioning is definitely something we need to > >> > >>>>discuss in > >> > >>>> >>> >> detail. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > What happens if I make a change to the camera plugin. > Do > >> I > >> > >>>> >>> immediately > >> > >>>> >>> >> > bump > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > the version? Probably not. But people who install it > >> using > >> > >>>> >>> plugman/cli > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > after the change will get the latest one on master > with > >> no > >> > >>>> obvious > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > difference to them. Version wise it is the same as > before > >> > >>>>the > >> > >>>> >>> change. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > This > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > feels wrong. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > We can now update plugins independently of our once a > >> month > >> > >>>> release > >> > >>>> >>> >> and > >> > >>>> >>> >> > get > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > those updates to our users instantly. I think we > should > >> > >>>>update > >> > >>>> the > >> > >>>> >>> >> > version > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > of the plugins after every change. Similar to > >> node-modules > >> > >>>>on > >> > >>>> npm. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > Coho is not just for packaging. I love the fact that I > >> can > >> > >>>> clone and > >> > >>>> >>> >> > update > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > all of the repos in a few quick commands. Coho seems > to > >> > >>>>have the > >> > >>>> >>> >> ability > >> > >>>> >>> >> > to > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > do tagging, release packaging and signing, uploading > >> > >>>>releases to > >> > >>>> >>> >> apache, > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > cloning all repos and soon generating release issues > on > >> > >>>>jira. It > >> > >>>> >>> will > >> > >>>> >>> >> be > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > important to solve all of the issues people are having > >> with > >> > >>>> coho and > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > document what you can do with it. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Joe Bowser > >> > >>>><bows...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>> >>> >> wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > I'm going to create a new thread about this, but > what's > >> > >>>>the > >> > >>>> >>> purpose > >> > >>>> >>> >> of > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > coho again? I thought it was just for packaging > >> releases. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> > >>>> >>> >> agri...@chromium.org> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Our intern Jeffrey is actively working on adding a > >> > >>>>command > >> > >>>> to > >> > >>>> >>> >> coho to > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > be > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > able to create release bugs (based off of > >> > >>>>cordova-labs). If > >> > >>>> he > >> > >>>> >>> >> gets > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > done, > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > by Monday, then it'll be a cinch to create the > >> issues. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > We could maybe start by discussing what we want > to do > >> > >>>>with > >> > >>>> the > >> > >>>> >>> >> plugin > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > repos > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > for the release. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Should they all have release branches? > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Should they be versioned the same? e.g. 3.0.x, or > >> > >>>>should > >> > >>>> they > >> > >>>> >>> >> start > >> > >>>> >>> >> > out > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > at > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > 1.0.x? > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Are we including a .zip of all of them in our > apache > >> > >>>> >>> distribution > >> > >>>> >>> >> > .zip? > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Here's a stab at it from me: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - Always include all core plugins in the apache > >> > >>>>release .zip > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - If a plugin has not changed since the previous > >> > >>>>release, > >> > >>>> then > >> > >>>> >>> >> just > >> > >>>> >>> >> > put > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > in > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > the previous release of the .zip. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - E.g. for 3.1.0, if plugin-console has no > >> changes, > >> > >>>>then > >> > >>>> just > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > package > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > version 3.0.0 of the plugin in the release > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - Create release branches for the plugin repos > only > >> if > >> > >>>> there has > >> > >>>> >>> >> > been a > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > commit since the previous release > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - If there were no commits, then there cannot > be > >> any > >> > >>>> >>> >> regressions, > >> > >>>> >>> >> > so > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > no > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > need for a release branch. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - I think they should be versioned the same to > help > >> us > >> > >>>> figure > >> > >>>> >>> out > >> > >>>> >>> >> > when > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > the > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > last change was. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > - This could mean that if plugin-console goes > >> three > >> > >>>> months > >> > >>>> >>> >> > without a > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > change, it will go from 3.0.0 straight to 3.3.0 > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Filip Maj > >> > >>>><f...@adobe.com> > >> > >>>> >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> Yeah.. Maybe we should create the issues for the > rc > >> > >>>>soon? > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> On 7/10/13 1:57 PM, "Andrew Grieve" > >> > >>>><agri...@chromium.org> > >> > >>>> >>> >> wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> >I would put that at next week unless someone has > >> > >>>>cycles > >> > >>>> to get > >> > >>>> >>> >> on > >> > >>>> >>> >> > it > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > this > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> >week. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Marcel Kinard < > >> > >>>> >>> >> cmarc...@gmail.com > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> >> When will the Upgrade Guides (2.9 -> 3.0) be > >> > >>>>written? > >> > >>>> That > >> > >>>> >>> >> > content > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > is > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> >> currently not in cordova-docs. > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > > >> > >>>> >>> >> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > -- > >> > >>>> >>> > Carlos Santana > >> > >>>> >>> > <csantan...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>> >>> > > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> >>> -- > >> > >>>> >>> Carlos Santana > >> > >>>> >>> <csantan...@gmail.com> > >> > >>>> >>> > >> > >>>> > >> > > >> > > >> >
