cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Let's try to release Cordova-Android 4.0.x soon
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:18:27 GMT
This is high on my list as well, but I'd really like to try switching
CordovaWebView to a class rather than an interface, and I won't have time
to do that until close to the end of the month.

One step along the way we can do right now though is switch 3.x branch over
to using Gradle by default. WDYT?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>
wrote:

> I'd love to see us get that out.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to see both the pluggable webviews and pluggable
> whitelists go out with it. Then we can get whitelist plugin, a real
> Crosswalk plugin, and a GeckoView plugin, published, and we can see what
> else the community can come up with, with all of the new flexibility.
>
> What do you see as the other big features that would go into a RELEASENOTES
> for 4.0.0?
>
>
> On Wed Nov 05 2014 at 11:34:05 AM Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey
> >
> > I know that we've been talking about this for a while, but I think that
> > we've let the 4.0.x branch go on for too long without releasing it and
> > moving it back into mainline.  It's getting super insane feature creep
> and
> > I would rather do a 4.0.x and a 5.0.x instead of cramming more stuff into
> > the current release branch.
> >
> > I know that we don't really have consensus on the API, and there are some
> > minor API changes that I want to see, like a renaming of CordovaWebView
> to
> > CordovaWebViewInterface, but I think it's better to see this out the door
> > by the end of 2014 instead of sometime next year, or never.  I'm
> finishing
> > off the MozillaView in the next two weeks, and that has been an
> interesting
> > experience shedding light on what I think really needs to be
> > documented/hacked/flensed in the next version of Cordova.
> >
> > That being said, we need to get the features that we have landed out
> sooner
> > rather than later, and while we could try for perfect, we should go with
> > what we have now for the most part, just to get it out there.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Joe
> >
>

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