cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Plugin and CordovaPlugin
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:53:48 GMT
OK, We actually did deprecate this properly.  I don't know how I
missed this edit Simon did on the Wiki:

https://wiki.apache.org/cordova/DeprecationPolicy

I think we should put it back for 2.x and remove it from 3.x.  We also
shouldn't support any bugs that appear with old plugins adding this.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org> wrote:
> I think three releases sounds fine. My main point here is that we should
> make that decision now, and announce the deprecation plan alongside 3.0, so
> users know the situation.
>
> Announcing both soon also sounds like a good idea, but we want to make sure
> any announcement of 3.0 is accompanied by our deprecation plan for 2.x.
>
> Braden
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm indifferent about adding this back.
>> >
>> > What I do want to comment on is that this seems like a good precursor of
>> > the furor that 3.0 is likely to create. Lots of things are going to
>> change,
>> > and all of these old plugins are going to be in a questionable state. In
>> > principle there's no reason why you can't manually install them in a
>> > 3.0-era project, I suppose.
>>
>> The old plugins are already in a questionable state. We don't maintain
>> these plugins.  The problem that we have now is that there are
>> projects that depend on these plugins, and people haven't been
>> updating the plugins.  I know for a fact that not even PhoneGap Build
>> has updated their Facebook Connect plugin.
>>
>> Also, I do have concerns about the publicity that 3.0 isn't getting so
>> far.  We need to actually announce to our users that we're making a
>> massive change to Cordova.
>>
>> >
>> > But it's going to be very confusing, and I suspect people are going to be
>> > trying to use the CLI tools to install old plugins, and manually
>> installing
>> > new plugins. Or just not updating, because it would require more than a
>> > small bit of work to migrate their apps. How firm are we going to be when
>> > our users cry out for a 2.10, for long-term support for 2.x? It might be
>> to
>> > our advantage to promise a couple of bugfix releases on 2.x up front when
>> > announcing 3.0. That sets the expectations: you have plenty of warning,
>> and
>> > time to make the change, but it's not going to last forever; the decision
>> > for when to drop support is already made.
>> >
>>
>> I think we should do a three release deprecation of 2.x, as in by the
>> time that 3.2 rolls out, we stop supporting 2.x altogether.  People
>> will continue to use 2.x, but we won't support it.
>>
>> > We don't want to find ourselves juggling both branches six months from
>> now,
>> > let alone a year from now.
>> >
>>
>> Fair enough!  Based on what happened last year, I think 3.2.0 will
>> come out in the fall, therefore we're not going to be stuck with the
>> old version for very long.  What do other people think?  Should we
>> just not maintain 2.x at all? Who can we blame for this, because I'm
>> getting tired of being the Batman of this project.
>>

Mime
View raw message