For example: easeljs-NEXT.js
I sense that the NEXT in caps has meaning, but don't know what.
I've tried searching on Bing, for example "what does NEXT mean in a filename".
Also tried a similar search here in stackoverflow with no result.
CreateJS contributor here.
The "NEXT" naming is the file convention we have chosen for the upcoming/in-progress version of CreateJS libraries. Typically, we commit changes/fixes over a period of time, and then eventually tag a new version that gets put on the CDN and (ideally/eventually) included in an updated version of Adobe Animate.
Due to our testing process, and inter-reliance across libraries (Preload, Sound, Easel, Tween), we are pretty conservative when it comes to making official builds. This is our way of making sure there are easy-to-use, compiled builds in GitHub with the latest features, fixes, and documentation. They aren't "official releases", as they might not play well with other content.
Releases:
easeljs.js (with comments and whitepace, good for testing)
easeljs.min.js (minified)
Upcoming/Latest
easeljs-NEXT.js
easeljs-NEXT.min.js
Prior to version 1.0, we used version names:
easeljs-0.6.2.min.js
easeljs-0.6.2.combined.js (the old testing version, not included on CDN)
You can also find "Combined" scripts on the CDN (and other CDNs) that have all 4 libs included. We didn't build NEXT versions of these, since they would be prone to issues:
1.0.0/createjs.js
1.0.0/createjs.min.js
Again, before 1.0, we used a version, which for combined libs was a release date, since they actual version numbers of the libs didn't all align.
createjs-2015.11.26.min.js
createjs-2015.11.26.combined.js
We are working on improving our release schedule, so there are more official releases than in the past. Hope that provides some insight!
Related
I am trying to download MRTK by following https://microsoft.github.io/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity/Documentation/GettingStartedWithTheMRTK.html. But on the Assests folder on GitHub for MRTK, I cannot find the two packages below mentioned:
Microsoft.MixedRealityToolkit.Unity.Examples.unitypackage
Microsoft.MixedRealityToolkit.Unity.Foundation.unitypackage
Did I miss anything simple?
The exact naming of the packages is going to be different from release to release because the version number increases each time a new version is published.
The docs will say something like
"Microsoft.MixedRealityToolkit.Unity.Examples.unitypackage"
But the latest right now actually is named:
"Microsoft.MixedReality.Toolkit.Unity.Examples-v2.0.0-RC2.1.unitypackage"
It's kinda done this way to reduce the number of things that have to get changed with each release (i.e. making sure that every single instance of the naming of a version stays up to date can be somewhat risk prone in terms of missing things, so when possible if we can just say "grab the latest package" or "grab the thing that is the examples package" it also helps to reduce the number of version mismatches out there).
So to be super clear here, basically go to the releases page:
https://github.com/microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity/releases
Scroll to the bottom of the the latest release and expand the Assets expando and get the two unitypackages:
https://github.com/microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity/releases/download/v2.0.0-RC2.1/Microsoft.MixedReality.Toolkit.Unity.Examples-v2.0.0-RC2.1.unitypackage
https://github.com/microsoft/MixedRealityToolkit-Unity/releases/download/v2.0.0-RC2.1/Microsoft.MixedReality.Toolkit.Unity.Foundation-v2.0.0-RC2.1.unitypackage
Would it be helpful to document the packages as
Microsoft.MixedRealityToolkit.Unity.Foundation[Version].unitypackage
The problem occurs to me using Perl5 for programming and Dist::Zilla (dzil) for deploying to CPAN. But the question is probably a general one, meaning independent of the programming language.
Problem description
Assuming I'm releasing a new version 0.1 of the module Foo with a new feature called bar. I would like to release it as a trial release (dzil build --trial), to be able the get feedback on the change without forcing it onto unaware users. When I'm doing so using my toolchain, the Changes file will look something like this:
1 Revision history for Foo
2
3 0.1 2019-06-19 17:49:09+02:00 Continent/City (TRIAL RELEASE)
4 - added bar
The packed distribution (for upload to CPAN) is a file like so: Foo-0.1-TRIAL.tar.gz
Until here, everything was easy. But from now on, I'm unsure how to react to upcoming events:
Feedback is positive. No changes needed. Bring the release in production.
How should the new (but unaltered) release look like?
Should I do a release with the same version or count the version up? Should I add a new line to the Changes file (e.g "bring trial 0.1 into production") or alter the existing one (meaning just removing the (TRIAL RELEASE)).
Feedback is negative. Changes needed. Add feature/change baz.
Same questions here. The new change surely needs a mention in Changes. But again: Count version up, or let it be? Make a new entry to Changes or alter the existing one?
This is one of these questions where I feel like: it probably doesn't matter to much, but there must be a "best practice". And in the long term it kind of pays of doing it right.
Question
How should I continue with version numbering and Changes file, after doing a trial release to specifically CPAN?
(General answers, which are independent from Perl and CPAN are also of interest)
My general advice is: if the TRIAL turns out to be a resounding success and there are zero changes aside from releasing the same thing without --trial, you can reuse the version, since at runtime the two tarballs will have identical behavior. If you have to make any changes that may affect users or tests, bump the version. If you're unsure, bump the version -- versions are free. Remember that without a distinct version, other distributions can't distinguish the changes in their dependencies, CPAN clients can't request a specific version easily, etc.
As far as the changelog, it may help that MetaCPAN now includes the changes for any trial releases leading up to the stable release in its changes preview, provided it can parse your changelog and the trial releases are marked as such. (example) So I would just include an entry for each distinct version.
https://github.com/MobileChromeApps/mobile-chrome-apps allows Chrome Apps to work on mobile.
Their getting started wiki is really good to get things working but it generates a lot of files with absolute paths. Nothing is said about which files to keep under source control.
At the moment I'm using each build: $ cca create YourApp --link-to=path/to/manifest.json which seems just wrong (for example the config.xml is lost).
TLDR; www/ is by far the most important. For the rest, just control what you edit, and trust that cca create --link-to= will re-create the project in a good state.
The files generated during cca create fall into two main buckets:
Your application; This obviously includes everything in the www/ folder, but also config.xml, merges/ (optional), and hooks/ (optional).
cordova/cca build artifacts; This includes plaforms/ and plugins/, and, well, anything else :)
Absolutely you should version control #1. Many developers don't actually use merges/ or hooks/ (at least at first), and config.xml is actually auto-generated during cca create using values from your www/manifest.json, so its fine to not version it unless you made manual edits. We realize its common to add <preference>'s there, so we are working on adding support for importing merges/ hooks/ and config.xml using --link-to=path/to/config.xml. Sorry if you need this feature today, please follow this issue to find out when it is resolves in cca.
As for #2, that depends on your preference. If you are making edits directly to the native bits of the platforms, then you should absolutely add those to version control. Or, if you want 100% control over how those bits evolve and you are 100% happy with the way the projects are working for you today, then sure, add them to version control.
However, we (cca and cordova developers) are constantly fixing, evolving, and improving platforms/ and plugins/, and by far the easiest way to "upgrade" your project right now is to just re-create it. We try very hard to be backwards compatible (and yell loud when we aren't), so you should have considerable confidence that a project today will work at least as well created next week.
Personally, I keep only #1 in version control, and re-create projects often (whenever the tools update, hey its quick!). Its not been an issue yet. I think the cca create --link-to=path-to-app syntax really helps here, and we are considering adding support for a cca update to make this even easier, eventually.
Finally, one developer working with cca has blogged about his experience, and one of the topics he covers is what to check in. He came to the same conclusion as we suggest.
Good Luck!
I've got a (dirty) production installation of Simple Machines Forum (SMF 1.1.13). It was a clean install, once... about five years, twenty updates, and 40 mods ago. Not to mention the custom code that was patched directly into the code base. This started as a for-fun side project, and didn't have any code management practices at the get-go.
Now SMF 2 is (getting closer to) going live, and I want to upgrade. But without leaving the custom features behind.
Keep reading, this is a general software management question, not an SMF support question...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to port the custom features into the new code branch.
In some cases, the custom 1.1.x functionality will already exist in 2.0. Yay, no work for me!
In some cases, there will be mod packages versioned for 2.0, and I can just install them directly on a clean SMF 2 build. Yay, minimal work for me!
In some cases, the code port will be fairly straightforward between the two versions (e.g. a few small changes in queries or global variable construction). (I've ported a few features/mods back from 2.0 to 1.1.x, so I'm starting to get familiar with it.)
In some cases, I'm just going to have to redevelop the features mostly from scratch.
Those last two options are gonna be hard to manage.
Any suggestions on how to port a large number of changes from one branch to another?
When it's not my own in-house code, that is. Here's my initial plan:
Diff between a clean version of 1.1.x and my "dirty" production code
Map each line diff to a feature ("That code update is the custom tagging feature, gonna have to port it line by line, and that one over there is the gallery, I can probably install an updated mod.") This would be SOMUCHEASIER if there were a diff tool that generated a consolidated report, instead of having to go through scores of files one at a time. Google and SO searches didn't find a tool like that-- Is there one?
Install a clean 2.0 branch
Install the available updated mods
Roll up my sleeves and go through my diffs feature by feature (this? is why I need the consolidated diff report. It would be hell to do page by page.) and build them back in.
Any better ideas? (Pointers to release management info are welcome, though of course with the caveat that it's not actually my code so I have limited control.)
Otherwise? I fear my options are ditch the custom features (not really feasible) or stay on the old branch. Both suck. Help!
tl;dr: Point me to a diff tool that will do consolidated file-by-file diff reports for entire directories. And/or help me figure out an easier way to migrate my custom code.
Your plan is generally the most practical approach, although I would say that you're heading in the wrong direction by looking for code-level differences. With no version control over the project lifetime and with no concise record of applied changes, in examining differences at the code level you are looking for a level of detail that may not give you the information you need to apply the same changes to a new implementation.
Move away from thinking of code-level changes and consider application-level feature and behavioural changes. What features have your changes introduced? In what ways does your application now behave differently due to your changes?
You say that there have been many unversioned changes over a long period - you will fail to find all the changes no matter what tools you have at your disposal and you will still need to consider the feature and behavioural changes that exist to fully represent the same features and behaviours in any upgraded implementation.
You know your application well, you use it and you do appreciate the feature changes that you have introduced even if you may not realise this.
Install a vanilla 2.0 release
Apply all appropriate mods
Apply relevant styling
Use the new system, note the differences in behaviour and develop from this a set of required features
Your feature set does not need to be complete - don't stall at the stage of trying to figure out all required changes, this will take too long.
Apply features gathered from most recent feedback (ideally through revertable mods)
Note the differences in behaviour at develop from this a set of required features
Repeat
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.