+1 Fil On Monday, July 15, 2013, Steven Gill wrote:
> Agree with Fil. We should probably stick to the apache way for now and > release source for all of the repos. > > Another question. Are we branching plugins as well? Shaz made a good point > that since we aren't developing on 3.0.x branches for plugins, might as > well just stick to only tagging plugins and not bother with branching. > > Thoughts? > > P.S. I am going to create the branches for all of the other platforms now > (using coho) > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > While I would personally like to see that approach, in the spirit of the > > "apache way", I think we should still be packaging a release with a > > specific commit from all relevant project repos (whether they include the > > plugin repos or not is up for debate but I am fairly ambivalent on that > > topic). This satisfies the apache requirement of having a release archive > > containing everything you need to get started, and doesn't block us from > > our more "online" way of loading particular versions of > frameworks/plugins > > into your own application shell. > > > > On 7/15/13 2:32 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > > >I'd like to add to that the release would probably be best served as > > >just shipping cordova-cli instead of all the build artifacts that > > >realize the cordova-cli interface. > > > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >> That sounds better to me. Steve is going to verify and tag the plugin > > >> repos to 3.0.0 today. The tacit agreement we've been discussing was > > >> that plugins would then only be updated tag wise when they themselves > > >> are updated. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > >>wrote: > > >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > We really need to have a plan for this release, so here goes: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 1. How to tag plugins: > > >>>> > - Voting via tagging won't work here since each plugin has > multiple > > >>>> > platforms. > > >>>> > - Let's create a sub-task for each plugin, and have each platform > > >>>>add a > > >>>> > comment to the sub-task when they have "signed off" on it. Once > all > > >>>> > platforms have been tested / signed-off, then it can be tagged. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sounds good. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> I no longer think this sounds good :P. Talked it through a bit with > > >>>Ian / > > >>> David / Max. Let's continue on with the existing JIRA issue, which > has > > >>>a > > >>> "Tag $PLATFORM" entry. > > >>> As a part of tagging your platform, you are signing off on having > > >>>tested > > >>> all of the plugins on your platform (aka, the same testing process > > >>>that we > > >>> had before). > > >>> Once all of the platforms are tagged, we can use coho to bulk tag all > > >>>of > > >>> the plugin repos. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 2. With this many repos, it's not easy getting them all back to > the > > >>>> correct > > >>>> > state / tag that they are supposed to be in for a release. For > this > > >>>> reason, > > >>>> > I think the .zip to apache servers *should* contain a snapshot of > > >>>>all > > >>>> > platforms & plugins. This way it's easy to get a "3.0" snapshot > for > > >>>>the > > >>>> > forever future. > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think we'll get agreement on this, but I have no feelings > > >>>> either way. As long as we're following the Apache Way, it sounds > > >>>> good! > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 3. Tagging / voting on platform repos. isn't that meaningful until > > >>>> plu
