cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Deprecation Wars: ICS vs Gingerbread
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:09:49 GMT
I'm just mentioning it because my only Android 4.0.3 devices are an ASUS
Transformer 2 tablet and a Motorola RAZR phone that did weird things to my
computer when I tried installing the extra software to upgrade it.

However, if we did deprecate 2.3, I can just flash 4.0.3 on the Nexus S and
use that.

On Wed Jan 07 2015 at 5:07:27 PM tommy-carlos williams <tommy@devgeeks.org>
wrote:

> It seems to me that if we are only going to drop *one*, that it should be
> Gingerbread first, since it is a lower SDK version.
>
> How can an app support GB and *not* ICS?
>
> Having said that, I am also interested in the discussion of better numbers
> on usage than just the Play Store (even if my gut reaction is always “BURN
> 2.3 WITH FIRE”).
>
> --
> tommy-carlos williams
>
> On 8 January 2015 at 10:39:33, Joe Bowser (bowserj@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> So, 2015 is here, and we have the new Android Pie Chart:
>
> http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html#2015
>
> Due to two percentage points on ICS and three on Gingerbread, we're stuck
> supporting these platforms for the near future, but it looks like we're in
> the bad spot of them reaching the magic 5% at the same time. Since I don't
> like the idea of automatically dropping 10% of devices, I'm wondering what
> we should deprecate first.
>
> Also, can we get better numbers for what's out there? Right now we still
> have the only single point of reference, which is the Google Play store.
> This doesn't cover China, or any other emerging markets. That said, things
> like Android One, and vendors like Xiaomi are making KitKat and Lolipop the
> standard. I know that I'm once again touching off a flame war between
> developers who know that these platforms don't get the tests they need to
> be actually considered supported, and various business interests who for
> some unknown reason need this support, but we should have this discussion
> again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Joe
>

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