Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD5F299A5 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:23:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 98163 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2012 02:23:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 98135 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2012 02:23:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 98127 invoked by uid 99); 25 Feb 2012 02:23:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:23:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.175] (HELO mail-tul01m020-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:23:45 +0000 Received: by obhx4 with SMTP id x4so3787278obh.6 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com designates 10.60.29.195 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.60.29.195; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of brian.leroux@gmail.com designates 10.60.29.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=brian.leroux@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=brian.leroux@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.60.29.195]) by 10.60.29.195 with SMTP id m3mr1643677oeh.61.1330136604722 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:23:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jwTd1TLCSKoeeHUmAn/sgJvSIi9FbqmoEUJhzm4JKwE=; b=dsn1FcdUayQb3RzChXFKJ8VRmxPwOx5g7Cd1Br2ynZXl/Neggcx8JW59aqNnprmOcr vOSZBtiTHKaDjKsJrck4eA3Nb9fiTv2KovSP77jo0cQwWV7wUANQDF2PDe+rkogJUg9X Nd2ZoFHjVNlY+unZkTEDwrz/A8LRehjeGdOOw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.29.195 with SMTP id m3mr1446662oeh.61.1330136604680; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:23:24 -0800 (PST) Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.43.103 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:23:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:23:24 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6y-J-sLYNd4uIN4ykHe5J9hPrj8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Concerns about releasing 1.5 From: Brian LeRoux To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Are odd-numbered point releases advertised as unstable? Should they be? this is how nodejs and other unix-y projects do things > What is the downside to cutting a release with only congruent improvements > and bug-fixes? we've made no commitment on the plugin api (its never been official) so I don't feel we're breaking any promises > Personally I am also curious about why the changes are considered for > general(?) release in a staggered fashion. you can get a sense of the roadmap here http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/RoadmapProjects the general consensus is that this year we remove everything from phonegap api wise, plugin all the things, and then have officially supported plugins in addition to community ones. this work is a part of that effort. not pretty, but worthwhile in the long run. with conditional compilation of plugins anyone can compose a version of cordova suited to their project goals. plus, things should be lighter and more performant, in addition to having a better security story. (though w/ an avg hello world weighing in at 20kb and a bridge that gets 200 operations/second I've not seen a convincing argument otherwise)