Yes, sorry for not being clear - this is all entirely about our own plugins.
I liked everything you said Jesse. Only reason I'm suggesting dev vs master is because right now that's how plugman works (pulls from master). If we change plugman to look for a tag (like npm install<https://npmjs.org/doc/cli/npm-install.html>does), then we can change our branch structure. On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Ian Clelland <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Okay, took me awhile to get this out, I should know better than to > promise > > to start a new threads on Friday afternoon. XD > > > > Split from 'Releases in a 3.0 World' > > > > RE: Pasted => > > > > > cordova-plugins: > > > - Commit only to the `dev` branch > > > - Use semver for them. > > ... > > I don't think that we should dictate what we expect the community to do > > with their own plugins. Here's some alternative thoughts: > > > > All good ideas, I think. To be fair, though, I think that Andrew's original > proposal was specifically about core plugins, and how we version / release > those. > > > > > a) versioning is done however the developer of the plugin wants to do it, > > for core plugins, because they are within our control and we ARE 'the > > developer' we will use semver. > > > > Agreed. See above. > > > > b) plugman needs to gain the ability to install any particular version > of a > > plugin, just like a plugin can depend on a specific version of another > > plugin, we need to be able do this directly. > > > > Probably some kind of standard git url that names both the repo and the > branch / tag. > > > > c) do not enforce the use of a dev branch, master should be considered a > > work in progress, we have already had issues where 1 broken push to > master > > [1] broke the plugin for all platforms. > > > > This will probably depend on (b), although we could also get the same > effect by developing on master, and having plugman pull from a named > "stable" branch (or some other named branch). Of course, if we want to > support third-party plugins as well, without dictating to them, then we > should probably be able to just tell plugman which branch to pull from for > any given plugin. > > > > - My personal expectation of a 'master' branch is that tests are > passing, > > but it is still the bleeding edge, and I should use it at my own risk. > > - If we want to suggest a tested latest version, in production, I think > we > > should use a tag or branch of 'latest-stable' or something similar. > > - also, plugman should be aware of version via tags or branches, and not > > blindly pull from master, this would likely be handled at plugin > > registration time. ( as in b above ) Then we can test a plugin's > > integration with other plugins before pushing it live. > > > > The rest of the initial proposal is about process, which I don't think we > > govern for plugin developers. We can certainly adopt something like this > > for the core plugins, but I think we should let the process evolve, and > not > > pretend we know what will happen next. > > > > I am not completely sold on the above, some of this is just me thinking > out > > loud, the main thing I worry is just that we may not have enough info to > > fully define this ( at least the process stuff), and I think it > definitely > > needs more discussion, and even maybe some experimentation. > > > > Ian >
