On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Frederico Galvão < frederico.gal...@pontoget.com.br> wrote:
> I fall in the scenario described by Tommy, but Michael said "it all" (most > of it): I keep my platforms under version control, so a _rm+add_ can be > managed and brought back to what I expect the platform to be in the end. > However, I do disagree in removing the concept of updates to the platfroms, > even if it's only android. > > Cordova has come a long way up to try and make the platforms pure artifacts > and output from a build process, but the thing is that in real life, an > application needs much more than what config.xml and it's preferences can > give. Sometimes (I know it's rare) things go further down the line to > changes in native code, something that cordova's shell can't offer. > Even if it was a simple application that didn't need any changes in the > native shell, somethings needed for a release are not configurable in > config.xml, like the keystore info for android, the certificates and > provisioning profiles in ios (which is a hell to config and get working), > and stuff like that would have to be reconfigured after an update. > Are these things that writing a plugin cannot solve? Is modifying platforms/ directly just easier or fundamentally required? Perhaps the solution is to make plugin development easier (its currently a pain), and to improve our messaging. > > To sum it up: having my platform folders completely rebuilt against my will > on platform updates isn't a bad thing IN MY CASE, because I keep it under > version control and therefore I have control over the changes in the end, > however I'd prefer to have it be a separate command or an arg I could pass > to "platform update". I'd like to have the update process improved and > maintained, but if it's not a priority I can live without it. I have lived > like that from 1.7 to 2.9.1, I can do it again :). > > 2014-10-01 23:03 GMT-03:00 Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>: > > > I like Josh's suggestion to leave the upgrade command in, even if it just > > maps to remove & add (for the record, we do this for cca). I also agree > > with Tommy's concern that we shouldn't remove blindly (for the record, in > > cca we warn and prompt for input that it will remove everything first). > > > > For those that don't treat platforms as artefacts, it seems not uncommon > to > > keep platforms in version control -- in which case this new type of > upgrade > > should not be dangerous or anything. > > > > -Michal > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Tommy Williams <to...@devgeeks.org> > wrote: > > > > > Have we reached the point where ./platforms is a build artefact yet? > > > > > > If not, what is remaining? > > > > > > If we just removed their android platform and called it upgrade, I > > suspect > > > some people would lose work on their app. > > > On 2 Oct 2014 11:18, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > There's been a couple bugs come in for Android where our update > script > > > has > > > > failed to bring a project in line with what would be created for a > new > > > > project: CB-7683, CB-6772 > > > > > > > > We could put more effort into writing transformations into the update > > > > script, but I think it might be more pragmatic to just tell people to > > > > "platform rm android && platform add android". > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Frederico Galvão* > > Diretor de Tecnologia > > PontoGet Inovação Web > > > ( +55(62) 8131-5720 > > * www.pontoget.com.br <http://www.pontoget.com/> >
