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 fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.78 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:01:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Android - Removing the .api namespace
Thread-Topic: Android - Removing the .api namespace
Thread-Index: Ac6NVyglCDXhBNlaQYqa5Mu76u0EIA==
Message-ID: <CE1D5B70.2345E%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBL_k655ajdx31YN=j1hSZZfTLmDGKLXUCdkv7MWK-_RWyxvA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Bah, this thread must have slipped my radar, apologies. I was replying to
the other one. Sigh.

On 7/30/13 11:57 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, yeah, remember how I fought this, and then suddenly we came to
>consensus because it's better to break everything all at once?
>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4454
>
>Can we actually follow our deprecation policy from now on? There's
>people there who are being unreasonable and asking for us to extend
>deprecation times to be a year in length because we do things like
>this.
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Simon MacDonald
><simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yup, break everything at once.
>>
>>
>> Simon Mac Donald
>> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Marcel Kinard <cmarcelk@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Normally being very averse to changing pubic API's, I'm with Andrew and
>>> Ian on this. If we are going to be making breaking changes, especially
>>>if
>>> they are small, do them all at once.
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > So far, we've asked plugin developers to migrate from the old-style
>>> > plugins to CordovaPlugin so that their plugins will work with 3.0.0.
>>> > Many plugin developers have already done that.
>>>
>>> We have migrated our plugins, but have third-party plugins done the
>>>same?
>>> Or do they wait for us to release the breaking change and then they are
>>> "forced" to update their plugin? I'm guessing the latter, but that is
>>>just
>>> a guess.
>>>
>>> I think what would help here is a Plugin Migration Guide in
>>>cordova-docs
>>> that gives a nice list of what the plugin developer needs to do. Most
>>> plugin devs are probably OK with making changes, as long as we tell
>>>them
>>> what they need to know.
>>>
>>> If there is a third-party plugin that an app developer needs that is
>>> abandonware, then they can stick with 2.9.x until the plugin gets
>>>updated.
>>>
>>>