Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-05 Thread Filip Maj
What about a new flag, --ignore-engines or something, instead of changing an existing flag? Who knows what users rely on the existing --force functionality? On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Shazron wrote: > You're right, --force does exist but the help for it says "forces copying > source files f

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-05 Thread Shazron
You're right, --force does exist but the help for it says "forces copying source files from the plugin even if the same file already exists in the target directory" which is different conceptually from the force we want, in that we want to ignore engine restrictions. We could overload --force to d

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-05 Thread Steven Gill
I think `--force` does exist and work for plugin add On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Shazron wrote: > Forgot about that merged proposal. What's lacking here is I think, a way > for the user to override the engine version enforcement (for whatever > reason, buggy CLI or plugin.xml, or they know

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread Shazron
Forgot about that merged proposal. What's lacking here is I think, a way for the user to override the engine version enforcement (for whatever reason, buggy CLI or plugin.xml, or they know something we don't know), something like a --force-install or something to that effect. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 a

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread Joe Bowser
OK, so we've already agreed to this? Why don't we just do this? On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Vladimir Kotikov (Akvelon) < v-vlk...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Here is another relevant proposal and discussion: > https://github.com/cordova/cordova-discuss/pull/30. I think we’ve agreed > to follow t

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread Joe Bowser
First of all, do we even suggest that the plugins will work to begin with, or do we just not prevent people from installing plugins and tell them that it may or may not work or that it's not supported when it fails? I'm very much with the latter, because while we don't test things we don't support

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread Vladimir Kotikov (Akvelon)
Here is another relevant proposal and discussion: https://github.com/cordova/cordova-discuss/pull/30. I think we’ve agreed to follow this way to “pin” specific plugins’ versions to specific cordova versions. Here are some examples: 1. https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-inappbrowser/blob/

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread julio cesar sanchez
I think we should start testing plugins with cordova-android 4.1.1 as is the lower required by Google to publish on Google play. If some plugin doesn't compile then increase the engine version to next cordova-android. In example, camera plugin doesn't compile with cordova-android 4.1.1. For cordov

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-04 Thread Filip Maj
Sounds like a good idea, but how to go about doing it? We probably can't easily, for example, rule out older versions of iOS without someone testing with an old Xcode version. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Shazron wrote: > Related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6582 > (almost 3 years

Re: plugins and engines

2017-01-03 Thread Shazron
Related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6582 (almost 3 years old...) TLDR; we should update the engine tags, with as much granularity as possible. I think we didn't do this because we don't actually know if it *doesn't* work on an older version (since of course we don't test the current

plugins and engines

2017-01-03 Thread julio cesar sanchez
I have noticed that most of the plugins don't use the engine tags or have them set to cordova 3.0.0 or 3.1.0 which are very old. As we drop support for old iOS/Android versions when updating cordova-ios and cordova-android, what is our policy for iOS/Android versions support in plugins? Right now