That's a good summary. I am going to be fixing the reference problem shortly and merge them back to the `dev` branch. Not sure if all of Jesse's changes have made it to the `dev` branch yet.
The `edge` docs have already been updated (see CB-4493) The `3.0` docs will have to be updated once we merge `dev` back to `master` (which I hope we will before we release 3.1). On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I realize why Anis decided to do a new branch (3.1.0) because he didn't > want to mess up dev/master. Before we release 3.1.0 we need to do a plugin > release based off of http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/StepsForPluginRelease. > Jesse has changes for the plugins that he has pushed to dev now based on > this email thread. He needs these changes to be in the next plugin release > we are doing for the 3.1.0 release. > > If I am understanding this correctly, removing core from ID was not > something we want in master due to 3.0.0 support. But this ID change should > have been done on dev before creating the 3.1.0 branch. The 3.0.0 docs get > users to install plugins using the git url. The problem is that the 3.0.0 > docs instruct our users to use the ID for plugin removal. Obviously if we > change the ID, the remove documentation for 3.0.0 would be wrong. > > We have two options here as far as I can tell > > 1) Leave master alone for the next month or two and give people time to > migrate to 3.1 > 2) Update the 3.0 documentation to refer to updated id, Push the updated ID > to dev then master. > > Things that need to be done > - Fix incorrect references to the old ID (last comment on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4889) > - Merge these changes into dev (they really should be on dev if that is > where we all the work done) > - Follow steps on http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/StepsForPluginRelease and > publish these plugins on our registry. This should include Jesse's work as > well. > - Update edge docs to refer to registry for plugin installation (not sure > if this has been done) > - Update 3.0.0 documentation if we decide option 2 from above is the way > to go > - Tag docs 3.1.0-rc1 > > I volunteer to take the lead on getting the plugins released + tested > (supposed to be today according to Andrew's timeline) for tomorrow > afternoon. I can get to the docs after that. > > Before I dive into this full steam, any feedback on above? > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Just to be super duper clear: the reason to work on 'dev' branch of plugins >> is not some process decision we are imposing, its a direct requirement >> imposed on us by the limitations of our tools (specifically, the state of >> the registry as it was with 3.0 launch). >> >> We discussed this in-depth just a week ago (Read "About plugins in 3.1"), >> and I think several other times over the last month, if you would like to >> read up on the details look there. >> >> No one likes the situation, we've been making headway into fixing it ever >> since we discovered the problem, and it can be resolved as soon as users >> upgrade from 3.0 (maybe that means we can switch after 3.1 release, maybe >> that means we wait for some 3-months deprecation time, not sure). >> >> -Michal >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org >> >wrote: >> >> > I agree with Joe that developing on anything other than master sucks. But >> > unfortunately, our hands are tied in the near term because the registry >> > doesn't know to fetch plugins from anywhere else. Also it makes life >> easier >> > for being who are installing plugins from git URLs. >> > >> > I think we eventually want to get to a world where 99% of plugin installs >> > are happening from the registry, the registry knows how to fetch tags, >> and >> > people who are using git URLs directly know what they're doing and want >> the >> > dev version. (Also you can specify branches with #gitref in the URL, so >> > there's flexibility there.) But we're not there yet. >> > >> > Braden >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Yes, let's get this cleared up - confused myself. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > 3.1.0 is coincidental and it's temporary for this release because I >> > > > wasn't sure where to get the code from and didn't want to compromise >> > > > master or dev. I could have called it something else. >> > > > >> > > > Jesse, I'd advise you to commit to dev. Everything will be merged to >> > > > master eventually. >> > > > >> > > > So to re-iterate the process: right now it's "dev -> master" and >> > > > eventually it will be "master -> (independant) plugin version". >> > > > amarite? >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> agri...@chromium.org >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> Plugins are not tagged nor branched along with platforms. They are >> > > > releases >> > > > >> completely independently. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Commit to the "dev" branch always. >> > > > > >> > > > > AND FOREVER!!!!!11!!eleventyone!!! >> > > > > >> > > > > Seriously, can't we have a stable branch instead? Having the dev >> > > > > branch for dev on plugins and having master for dev on platforms is >> > > > > stupid and makes it harder to do work. >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
