Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F4123CBCB for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 39005 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jul 2013 18:00:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 38980 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jul 2013 18:00:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 38962 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jul 2013 18:00:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:00:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.170] (HELO mail-ie0-f170.google.com) (209.85.223.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:00:01 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e11so2278906iej.1 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:59:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Yn7Pn3ARmn9gg7GJQ8+6L2w3uix76BHSzDAkQgrz7U4=; b=DPm4KhhSA1tD9ECkcA8BL5e7+TULN+whbo8t5iqIBmcBrw8LReLZJZsYVS6NHvDWbJ NxwGtwhAZ6q5F7Zl1bRAgGXxWnLhGhbkh6NdNgKwrerGfpj26SCsEgCBuIcMuZLTlBAg 9saePMYUruNV87kWe/wVVmvt3CxCediAtLMiCKcA5yCpUfA14slbT0eoaYIYc5aoX25f 5wiXGf7/fduwALmgxyTPlaVbEfB8X5ZItyLxaeN5j0iXyR8Ysfi57iAVJ3omCglA0uUU qKW0iGxc1NFYC+AcmHk5UA2NsbBsSC3yTUcenwvTS0WSMvDRjjGVifhXK40X45cjlrGJ DZgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.12.198 with SMTP id pj6mr2102755icb.68.1373997581418; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.222.197 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:59:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:59:41 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5nVvn0rs7rJG5CGzN0Mx4m9kduA Message-ID: Subject: Re: 3.0.0 as a beta release? From: Brian LeRoux To: dev@cordova.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I'm not in favor of of this. The basic flows work. There should be visibility into these perceived issues in the form of blog post. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, David Lewis wrote: > This is why I'm upgrading from 2.5 to 2.9 now. > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > >> As I'm going through all of the polish details, reading through the upgrade >> guides, and thinking about API-type things that we'd still like to change, >> I'm wondering if it would be wise to message 3.0 as an "early-adopter" or >> "beta" release. >> >> One prime example of something that I think people will get tripped up by >> is that when you use Xcode or Eclipse, your changes will be often blown >> away by "cordova prepare". I think we should explore solutions to this >> (e.g. in Xcode, have the project reference the root www/ and merges/ >> instead of the derived one). Another thing we could do is rename www -> >> derived_www/. >> >> The "beta" / "early adopter" label would mean: >> - No 3.0 "final", we can just go with calling "3.1" stable >> - User expectations will be that CLI may have bugs or rough edges (e.g. >> when you remove a platform, any modifications you make will be deleted) >> (e.g. I don't think there's a way to "plugin ls" that shows the @src of >> your plugins - URL+hash+subdir) (e.g. There is no way yet for apps to >> depend on plugins by adding them to your config.xml & typing "cordova >> plugin sync") >> >> >> Usually major releases come with the expectation that they are better & >> more solid & worthy of attention. I feel like 3.0 will be more of an alpha >> in terms of quality / stability of code changing. >> >> Thoughts? >>