Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of shazron@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMTxO40rR=CGvAz6FFDXDJD9LsF10zhNj7GhQzYS=eC=ucV2Sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKP6k2sLGThYh5WVQg2ehxdWp3OUgb4v-jLQn2eV5Sq7oVvAHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E62E27D5-5AAE-4CE2-9FA7-089176F88208@gmail.com>
 <CAOBL_k585Bn6Jn7FAZ0n7awNWo=z7xteOvkiFDGwE6yTFp6ZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <-3140625263493741375@unknownmsgid>
 <CAKP6k2vOi9OAkz2Z52Mt9HoS0B7VYLQEF2eyAEFzVohxw=TBCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE6O_-YBQqALZ6m3t4tbEiefJ8oaLHWZXQKWoXSGhwVYLqr0-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKP6k2vHjU4nDinp7BmZ63ef-S+-Z4Z-Rv=rJhaPycaAn+kbyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE6O_-ZTkXCaEy9So7qURwAXMmwSBYRGt6BBg7MU9q00YuwP3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKP6k2vrDLCS-1G_LQw1K25GfvXM=+Omhm+OundEkwoARMJBvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVgkyM=d6vrcuoAEXumhMgKFfvKn8D0_JbP3y+EK=jBYVn7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <E59CF90A-33EB-4EFB-866A-DF87096FB2E1@gmail.com>
 <CADVgkyPvRJdO6mfYNWe2FOhP3m-C2aiaruv-NKAC+XiHD-A+nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1381941404.63050.YahooMailNeo@web163905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAE6O_-Y-1ecSa7-8rd3pq6hG9EACug__M3j+fkUYDzX9QhJhYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE6O_-ZHP2K-ve2-xH4aYRC=EnPYSxkCfpyNU0u0NcighDQ5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMTxO40rR=CGvAz6FFDXDJD9LsF10zhNj7GhQzYS=eC=ucV2Sg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:05:19 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAE6O_-au2R+ig9xBSPLu1oxrG7krjwwMUkPSV4Ego55U3rruFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tag 2.9.1
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c54c25a72704e8f48242

--001a11c2c54c25a72704e8f48242
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I don't think so - if we backported stuff to 3.0, wouldn't that just make
it 3.1? (would be just easier to upgrade through npm) :)


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Kemp <drkemp@google.com> wrote:

> When the dust settles about what to backport to 2.9, does that mean that
> all of that gets pushed back to 3.0 as well?
> Plus more?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To reiterate (before updating the wiki page)
> >
> > - Backporting ends with the 3.5 release (or six months, whichever comes
> > first)
> > - Only backport fixes to 2.9 for serious platform breakages and "easy"
> > plugin changes, not new features (iOS 7 changes are new features)
> > - No re-organizing of plugins to backport code to (for example in 3.0
> > the Notification
> > plugin diverged into the Notification and Vibration  plugins, so for 2.9
> we
> > won't re-organize it also)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Dan,
> > > All feedback appreciated! It's one way to contribute, among others. I
> > > kicked off a Wiki page under "How to Contribute" -- called 2.9.x
> support,
> > > right now it's empty -- I'll populate it with what we discussed.
> > >
> > > https://wiki.apache.org/cordova/2.9.x%20Support
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Dan Moore <moore234@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> I know this is a dev list, so please let me know if I'm out of line
> > >> posting (since I am a user and not a dev), but I couldn't restrain
> > myself
> > >> from chiming in on this issue.
> > >>
> > >> First, thanks for supporting 2.9.x for a while.  As a user developing
> on
> > >> top of Cordova, chasing Cordova versions can be tough.  I really felt
> > good
> > >> about committing to 2.9, especially since 3.x was such a big (good,
> but
> > >> big) change.
> > >>
> > >> As a user, I would advocate for:
> > >> * having a clear end of life date for 2.9.x (3.5 or 6 months or
> > whichever
> > >> comes first).  The blog is a fine place to put this, but I'd also add
> > it to
> > >> the 2.9 docs, announce it on the phonegap google group, etc.
> > >> * porting as much as possible back (including iOS 7 support)
> > >> * documenting what you can't or won't backport in the blog and in the
> > >> 2.9.x docs, so users can make an informed choice.
> > >>
> > >> From this thread, seems like you aren't interested in porting new
> device
> > >> support back to 2.9.x.  That is a bummer.  Is that because of the
> > effort?
> > >>
> > >> When I read that 2.9.x was going to be supported for a 'long time':
> > >> http://www.infil00p.org/introducing-cordova-2-8-1-on-android/  I
> wasn't
> > >> sure what that meant, but I hoped it meant support for major new
> > versions
> > >> of devices (especially on the two marquee platforms).
> > >>
> > >> As far as no one moving to 3.x, I would say that when you specify the
> > end
> > >> of life of 2.9.x, that will be a clear signal it is time to move.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I'm sure I can live with whatever is decided, but please do
> > >> communicate this as clearly and loudly as you can to us users.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dan Moore
> > >> Developing with Cordova CLI
> > >> https://leanpub.com/developingwithcordovacli
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>  From: Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
> > >> To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:02 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: Tag 2.9.1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> yes and yes!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarcelk@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > So my intepretation of these comments is:
> > >> > - backport fixes to 2.9 for serious platform breakages and "easy"
> > plugin
> > >> > changes, not new features (new device OS capability such as iOS 7 is
> > >> > considered a new feature)
> > >> > - stop backporting anything to 2.9 when 3.5 comes out
> > >> >
> > >> > If so, should this be spelled out somwhere, such as
> > >> > cordova.apache.org/blog?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > 3.5
> > >> > >
> > >> > > (Or six months.)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But ya, what Jesse said.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Jesse wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I would not add iOS7 support.
> > >> > >> I would consider adding any plugin changes if it is not too
> > difficult
> > >> > to do
> > >> > >> so.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> @purplecabbage
> > >> > >> risingj.com
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com
> > >> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> Nothing is "completely" broken in iOS 7, although with iOS 7
> > issues
> > >> > that
> > >> > >> is
> > >> > >>> debatable. If we keep patching 2.9.x no one will move on to
> 3.x...
> > >> (at
> > >> > >>> least for iOS). There has to be an ending...
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>> Decide what is completely broken in your platform, that is
> > >> reasonable
> > >> > >> to
> > >> > >>>> fix, and fix it.
> > >> > >>>> No promises ... just fix what we can, and document that it is
> > >> fixed. I
> > >> > >>>> think...
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> @purplecabbage
> > >> > >>>> risingj.com
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> One question about this that was not answered. When does
> > >> back-porting
> > >> > >>>> end?
> > >> > >>>>> I'm not sure what we promised for 2.9.x support going
> forward...
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Jesse <
> purplecabbage@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> Okay, I am actively working on back-porting plugin fixes into
> > >> 2.9.1
> > >> > >>> for
> > >> > >>>>>> WP7, WP8, and Windows8
> > >> > >>>>>> What is the status of Android, BB, iOS, ... ?
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> @purplecabbage
> > >> > >>>>>> risingj.com
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Jesse MacFadyen <
> > >> > >>>>> purplecabbage@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> Yes, now that 3.1.0 is out the door, we can do this.
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> I think we need to just have everyone go through their work
> > >> > >> over
> > >> > >>>> the
> > >> > >>>>>>>> past month and see if they missed backports.  I didn't
> > actually
> > >> > >>>> have
> > >> > >>>>>>>> very much missed, and I just backported the File plugin in
> > the
> > >> > >>>> 2.9.1
> > >> > >>>>>>>> branch.  Of course, with backporting, we need more people
> to
> > >> > >> look
> > >> > >>>> at
> > >> > >>>>>>>> what was in 3.1.0 and the plugins and check to make sure we
> > >> > >>>> backport
> > >> > >>>>>>>> everything, since this is really tricky and spans all the
> > >> > >> plugin
> > >> > >>>>>>>> repos. :(
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Marcel Kinard <
> > >> > >>>> cmarcelk@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> This thread seems to have gone quiet without a consensus.
> > >> > >> Should
> > >> > >>>>> there
> > >> > >>>>>>> be additional 2.9.x releases going forward?
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> If so, how often? What kind of fixes should be backported?
> > >> > >>> Include
> > >> > >>>>>>> updated docs?
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Jesse <
> purplecabbage@gmail.com
> > >> > <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> As soon as we are done with 3.1.0 it would be a good time
> > to
> > >> > >> go
> > >> > >>>>> back
> > >> > >>>>>>> and
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> back-fill for a 2,9,1 release.
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>> Who's with me?
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a11c2c54c25a72704e8f48242--