cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: plan for handling updated device OS versions?
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:21:05 GMT
Thanks for bringing this up.

Last time we released 2.1 right _before_ iOS 6 came out (I believe) and it
became obvious that we should pay more attention to manufacturer release
schedules and plan for point releases to be in sync with those.

In general our target has been Cordova support is ready to roll by the
time the first real device running mobile OS XYZ version 1.2.3 lands in
consumer hands.

Moving forward I think option #2 you point out below should be the way to
go (although we don't necessarily have access to beta programs with all
vendors *cough* Apple *cough*). We will rely on Cordova's committers
(especially the committers more in charge of owning one particular
platform) to mention on the mailing list any soon-to-be-released OS
revisions for their platform and help us schedule point releases
accordingly. For example the 2.3 planning thread that is floating around
right now is a good start. We should be doing these sorts of threads after
every release IMO.

On 11/5/12 1:15 PM, "Marcel Kinard" <cmarcelk@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm seeing rumors on the web that iOS 6.1 is in the works from Apple and
>there is a beta that recently opened. Is there any sort of target for
>handling new device OS versions in Cordova? For example:
>
>- Cordova should support a new device OS in the next Cordova version 4-6
>weeks after the OS becomes generally available
>or
>- through the participation of betas with the device vendor, and careful
>release scheduling, Cordova should support a new device OS on day 1 that
>a new OS becomes generally available
>or
>- (something else entirely, since these are just examples)
>
>The goal here would be to:
>- provide some general direction to consumers and set realistic
>expectations.
>- provide specific direction to the Cordova development community, and
>give us a target to shoot for.
>- be consistent in our approach across all the OS vendors (assuming that
>is desired).
>
>Has there been previous discussion on this topic? If not, what are your
>ideas on this?
>
>-- Marcel Kinard


Mime
View raw message