cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.9.0 Support
Date Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:04:11 GMT
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
> > >
> >
> >
>

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