Ok, so this version can be compared to the iOS or Android API version? Then it defintely makes sense to do some work to make this configurable in a better way in the future. Jesse, do you want to create the issue? You seem to have a specific idea already.
To recap: - We think the test failure is a problem only happening on AppVeyor and should not affect actual users - We are ok with starting a 6.0.0 release with the current `master` state with this one failing test on AppVeyor - We "pledge" to further look into it and release 6.0.1 or 6.1.0 if we indeed find the solution Agree? If so, I will start the release process until Monday. J PS: I will contact AppVeyor to find out if they can maybe help - blocked file, maybe because of some other running process? 2018-02-09 23:13 GMT+01:00 Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com>: > There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and-versions/choose-a-uwp-version > > There are 2 important values at play: > Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we > support, probably 16299 > Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... > probably 10586 > > Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via > config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to happen. > > Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, I > had failing tests using master as-is. > > The failing test on appveyor is something different related to environment > I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not fix > the fail on appveyor. > > I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a patch > release in the near future when we work out the details of a configurable > target/minimum version. > > > > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody <chris.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" <piotrow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully >> understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to >> just ignore it. >> >> >> >> Makes sense to me >> >> >> Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? >> >> >> >> Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to >> install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my >> PC. >> >> >> What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually >> but have only that one installed? >> >> >> >> I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does not >> exist. >> >> >> VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least >> nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. >> >> >> >> Makes sense >> >> >> This should have been added >> earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ >> f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad >> - which then showed this bug. >> >> >> >> Good work on your part >> >> >> (If any of the other failures that were >> then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say >> unfortunately) >> >> >> >> It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time for >> it. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
