It could be a doc or or blog post, I would suggest blog post for plugins for more details about dealing with registry since those have a faster pace
--Carlos On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>wrote: > Would suggest we document a simple workflow document "Upgrade Guide > Cordova CLI/PlugMan 3.0 to 3.1" > Same way that we do for the platforms on going over the details in a > single document. > > --Carlos > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> I think the 3.0 instructions of removing the old plugin with the old ID >> remain correct even after we update the registry. Thats because when >> removing plugins from a workspace you use the ID of whats locally >> installed. >> >> So, to upgrade, users would have the use the 3.0 uninstall guide and the >> 3.1 install guide.. I think? >> >> -Michal >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 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/StepsForPluginReleaseand >> > > 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. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > <csantan...@gmail.com> > -- Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
