cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: 2.9.0 Support
Date Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:03:14 GMT
I was in the habit of merging bug fixes back into 2.9.x a while ago, but
have also stopped doing that.

If we want 2.9.x to be bug fixes only, then I think it makes sense to spend
some time and cherry-pick changes.
If we want 2.9.x to be new features + bug fixes, then we could just work on
adding pre-bundling logic so that "bin/create" causes plugins to be already
installed. We want pre-bundling logic anyways for things like Android's
"App" plugin.

I suspect what we want is the bug fixes, but that does leave iOS7 support
out of 2.9.x, which makes it somewhat useless. So maybe we should just work
on pre-bundling?


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > What is the support statement for 2.9.x  for new OSs?
> >
> > For example:
> > iOS7 not supported on 2.9.x
> > xCode 5 not supported on 2.9.x
> >
> > 2.9.x + bugs only supports:
> > iOS 5 and 6
> > Xcode 4.6.3
> >
>
> That's a good question: 6 months from now, there will probably be very few
> of us with Xcode 4.6 -- most developers will have automatically updated.
> Are we committed to still supporting that as a development platform? Or is
> 2.9.1 going to be the "Hey, you need to support iOS 7 or be rejected from
> the App Store" release?
>
> Is there any value in continuing to support 4.6, if Apple is going to start
> rejecting apps which are built with it?
>
> Ian
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > > It ends in 3.6 (I would think) as per our 6 month deprec policy.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
> > > > media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport
> the
> > > > code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for
> > support?
> > > > +1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can help!
> > > > > On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <
> peters@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about
early
> > > > > > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of
> > projects
> > > > > > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support
2.x
> > in a
> > > > > > long lived branch."
> > > > > > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but
now
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > not clear at all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf
Of
> > > Michal
> > > > > > Mocny
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > > > > > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still
> > > support
> > > > > > the old workflow with 3.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while
we
> > iron
> > > > out
> > > > > > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run
out
> of
> > > > > > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the
> bugfix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Michal
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch?
I'm
> > just
> > > > > > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed
against
> > > that.
> > > > > > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should
be
> > > > > > > backporting to 2.9.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit,
but I
> > > have
> > > > > > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are
> people's
> > > > > > > thoughts on this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Santana
> > <csantana23@gmail.com>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message