Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <86A8B359-970B-43FD-BC97-C1DB594F6BCC@gmail.com>
References: <CD70D110.1AB42%fil@adobe.com>
	<86A8B359-970B-43FD-BC97-C1DB594F6BCC@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:28:02 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADVgkyM7z+5b571Nn0OZVvatPeYGWAJ2gKfPX7vE2vGuDmLuJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: archiving older platforms
From: Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This means we're going to leave Bada, Qt, webOS at their latest tags,
and not dist. (Code still accessible, etc.)

We'll continue as normal for BB, for now.


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Gord Tanner <gtanner@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am confused, who are the stewards and what platforms are being stewarded?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2013-03-21, at 6:00 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 3/21/13 2:12 PM, "Shazron" <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I think we have agreement that we'll put these guys on hold until
>>>>> they find a steward. This means:
>>>>>
>>>>> - we won't be taggin them further
>>>>> - we won't be including them in a release
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not mean:
>>>>>
>>>>> - deletion or archiving or attic for the src
>>>>>
>>>>> (Think of it as a pause button!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree/disagree?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> If there are no fixes going into these platforms, then there is no
>>>>> benefit
>>>>>> in their users updating them to newer versions of Cordova.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's going to be more refactoring required when moving plugins to
>>>>> their
>>>>>> own repos. We'll really need owners for all platforms that will make
>>>> the
>>>>>> transition, or else we won't have any way to test that the
>>>> refactoring
>>>>>> hasn't broken a platform. On specific example is that blackberry's
>>>> JS
>>>>> repo
>>>>>> is really 4-in-1 currently, and our plugin spec doesn't have support
>>>> for
>>>>>> this. They will need to be split out into 4 separate platforms, at
>>>> least
>>>>> as
>>>>>> far as the JS is concerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So... I guess my +1 is just for any platform that doesn't have a
>>>> someone
>>>>>> willing to focus on it. E.g. I'm fine with keeping WebOS around if
>>>> Markus
>>>>>> wants to do the work to support it through this transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Ken Wallis
>>>> <kwallis@blackberry.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will try to provide relevant stats on platform adoption as we
>>>> are
>>>>> able.
>>>>>>> I am anxiously awaiting that information myself. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While lacking this information, I still feel that BBOS will be
>>>> with us
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a deal of time, particularly in the enterprise where we are seeing
>>>> a
>>>>>>> significant trend towards Cordova/PhoneGap/WebWorks as the primary
>>>>> platform
>>>>>>> of choice for apps. This is, frustratingly, a difficult market to
>>>> get
>>>>>>> adequate metrics out of, as they will typically not use PhoneGap
>>>> Build
>>>>> IMO,
>>>>>>> and they don't deploy to commercial application stores. A bit of a
>>>> black
>>>>>>> box, but our enterprise support teams continually support the
>>>> notion
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> enterprise looks at HTML5 apps first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this regard, we would like to see support for BBOS be
>>>> maintained in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> short term. Our team is focused on bringing up BlackBerry 10 built
>>>> on
>>>>>>> Cordova, and once that has gotten to a stable point we will then be
>>>>> able to
>>>>>>> look at resources and determine if BBOS is still a valuable
>>>> platform
>>>> to
>>>>>>> support and if we can port BBOS to the new structures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope that makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Z10 smartphone.
>>>>>>> From: Anis KADRI
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:00 PM
>>>>>>> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>>>>>>> Reply To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: archiving older platforms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> s/QR/Qt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Lorin Beer
>>>> <lorin.beer.dev@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 Bada/webOS/QR
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> echoing Michael's point, I'd like to see usage stats on the
>>>> older BB
>>>>>>>> platforms. BB10 should absolutely be the focus, but If they are
>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>> being used, mothballing may be premature. Revisiting the issues
>>>>>>> regularly,
>>>>>>>> and making one based on usage stats makes the most sense to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 all of them, Java and Air implementations of BlackBerry as
>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the older implementations of BlackBerry, nothing is
>>>> stopping
>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>> from using that code. The fact is that Java and Air-related
>>>> fixes
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> been going in regularly. The implementations are stable enough
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> drawing a line in the sand and saying no more active support
>>>> for
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> older
>>>>>>>>> BB SDKs is acceptable in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/13 11:44 AM, "Michael Brooks"
>>>> <michael@michaelbrooks.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As far as bb 6 and 7, I am sure the majority of devices out
>>>> there
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> BB 6
>>>>>>>>>>> and 7. BB10 just came out so there can't be that many yet.
>>>>>>> Developers
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to be interested in those platform though and I think
>>>> the
>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be on BB10.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would probably be more accurate to say "BlackBerry Java"
>>>> which
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> BB 4.6/5/6/7 - yep, we "support" all the way back 4.6
>>>> although no
>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>> that far back anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've heard BlackBerry voice the opinion that they would like
>>>> to
>>>> see
>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>> Cordova focus solely on BlackBerry 10. However, PhoneGap/Build
>>>> has
>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> large demand for BlackBerry 5 and 6.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 Bada
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 webOS - we may want to bring this out of the Attic in the
>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 QR - we may want to bring it this out of the Attic when
>>>> gearing
>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu Phone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +0 BB - I want to talk with the our PhoneGap/Build team to
>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> understand their stance. I'd also like Ken or Jeff from
>>>> BlackBerry
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> chime
>>>>>>>>>> in with their opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Anis KADRI <
>>>> anis.kadri@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to kill those platforms and archive them in the attic :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If WebOS, Qt become relevant again we can revive them from
>>>> the
>>>>>>> attic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Anis KADRI <
>>>>> anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Projects whose PMC are unable to muster 3 votes for a
>>>> release,
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> no active committers or are unable to fulfill their
>>>> reporting
>>>>>>> duties
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> board are all good candidates for the Attic."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe those projects satisfy the "no active
>>>> committers"
>>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any active committers for Bada, Qt or WebOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Markus Leutwyler is the only WebOS committer and is no
>>>> longer
>>>>>>>>>>> employed by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the company that is in charge of it and I am not sure if
>>>> he's
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in maintaining it. There are still devices out
>>>>> there I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>>> but no new devices are getting shipped.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bada is officially dead [2] but they still released an
>>>> SDK a
>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks ago [3] O_O! They still owned #4 spot in Q3 2012
>>>> ahead
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone [4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as bb 6 and 7, I am sure the majority of devices
>>>> out
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> BB
>>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>> and 7. BB10 just came out so there can't be that many yet.
>>>>>>>> Developers
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to be interested in those platform though and I think
>>>> the
>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be on BB10.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://attic.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/story/samsung-scraps-bada-os-folds-it-
>>>>>>>>>>> tizen/2013-02-25
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] http://static.bada.com/releasenotes/2.0.6.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2237315
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Brian LeRoux
>>>> <b@brian.io>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question has come up about our continued support for:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - bada
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - webos
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - qt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - bb6 & bb7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is currently actively maintaining Bada, and Qt.
>>>>> However, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could see us wanting to keep Qt around given Ubuntu
>>>> Phone.
>>>>> There
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no new webOS devices, though rumours persist they could
>>>>> happen,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like its more of a ceremony than real support. The
>>>>> older BB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms are maintained but the real focus is BB10.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain
>>>> confidential
>>>>>>> information, privileged material (including material protected by
>>>> the
>>>>>>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>>>>> non-public
>>>>>>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the
>>>>> intended
>>>>>>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
>>>>> error,
>>>>>>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information
>>>> from
>>>>>>> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of
>>>> this
>>>>>>> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
>>>>> unlawful.
>>