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 shazron@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEeF2TdA+7NRQTneYrP70-f2iWHt+R61iZN7WeR-7o_tmA3Qkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP7NMPqH0ANkY+3fNcoiWSQMNyNjAjupgFTzF-i_KG4AYffR2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD6B5EC8.1A166%fil@adobe.com>
 <CAASJe78C_SyNSyQ5n4VFcRbb3-96o23cNFSqGnWkBYVnpP21Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpVHHxe0BtGOaWRfRrWO8MG3SK40PMewFgQJ76OaQ7SoTvzmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130320025211.58245160.29489.1111@blackberry.com>
 <CABiQX1U47jqjcE91g+JD-WUxaT2bujoeDR7e48q+i033MiOsBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVgkyPS_aK4WMJBdJisJtumJ881kyyvYev69b6D6cu=BTgtSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEeF2TdA+7NRQTneYrP70-f2iWHt+R61iZN7WeR-7o_tmA3Qkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:12:14 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAE6O_-a6nwCj+ek_XPgWkBnsH5EPVw8s426Ed5xx8cPpEO_ucQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: archiving older platforms
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca612560c3404d875cd71

--047d7bdca612560c3404d875cd71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+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.
> > >>
> >
>

--047d7bdca612560c3404d875cd71--