Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bowserj@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CC7E0B22.DFC5%fil@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAOBL_k4u4C+wjn2rFh53Mf72FtkNgnfRJvFZEnexzF7X=gu-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC7E0B22.DFC5%fil@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:32:09 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOBL_k76URRgFS1yxmd67+JLbKLKWF1f8xJaLstLh0pew7RSaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Android] Android versioning phase-out (2.1 and 3.x)??
From: Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Not quite yet. I think we should just say that we're not supporting
Android 3.x.  It doesn't mean that the software won't work on 3.x,
since we won't be changing targets like with 2.1, but we will have the
ability to close any 3.x bugs with "Won't Fix", which would be great.

Does that sound good?

Joe

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a new thread :)
>
> On 9/18/12 11:23 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, How about we do the following:
>>
>>1. Announce that 2.1 will be dropped six months from now, as per our
>>deprecation policy
>>2. Keep support for Android 3.x for the time being and watch to see
>>the percentages drop
>>
>>Honestly, I think our deprecation policy is far too long, but given
>>how it was created, I understand the reason for it.  What do people
>>think?
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Brooks
>><michael@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We are having a tough time finding and keeping Android 2.1 devices
>>>> (most get upgraded to 2.3 or just die)
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a pain-point that I've felt many times. When I have found a
>>>device,
>>> there are enough "quirks" on the browser that it's not worth the
>>> development time to support the small percentage of users. Usually, I've
>>> end up supporting 2.3+.
>>>
>>> +1 for dropping 2.1.
>>>
>>> I'll abstain from voting on Honeycomb because I have very little
>>>experience
>>> with that tablet / Android OS.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Braden Shepherdson
>>><braden@chromium.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> If manufacturers and carriers are rescuing the Galaxy Tabs (the only
>>>> Honeycomb device with any real penetration, I think) then we can
>>>>justify
>>>> dropping support for it eventually. On the other hand, if the only
>>>>thing
>>>> stopping it is hardware acceleration, we could easily turn hardware
>>>> acceleration back on and have a "how to fix Honeycomb" doc as Andrew
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> +1 to dropping 2.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > +1 for dropping 2.1
>>>> > +1 for dropping 3.whatever-it-was honeycomb
>>>> >
>>>> > ...in 2.2 or should we issue a general warning and wait a couple of
>>>> > releases?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > > Apparently the wifi tablets were only updated last week to ICS
>>>>(the 3G
>>>> > > updates came first). Also, manual update:
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>http://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-tab-10-1-p7510-android-4-0-4-ics-
>>>>uelpl-update-official-110369/
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >> Verizon just announced today (yes today!):
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/09/17/verizon-galaxy-tab-10-1-ice-crea
>>>>m-sandwich-update-rolling-out-now/
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> T-mobile announced 2 weeks back:
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/03/t-mobile-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-andr
>>>>oid-ics-update/
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Apparently its available in Canada since end of August 2012:
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>http://www.androidcentral.com/telus-bell-and-rogers-samsung-galaxy-tab-1
>>>>01-andoid-404-updates-now-available
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Gene
>>>>ralCareSupport/message-id/355
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Simon MacDonald
>>>> > >> <simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > >>> Me either. My Galaxy 10.1 Tab is still running 3.1.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Simon Mac Donald
>>>> > >>> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>> Funny, I never got that update.
>>>> > >>>> On Sep 17, 2012 5:34 PM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>> Talking about the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Anis KADRI
>>>><anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> > That was last year and Samsung has updated them to 4.0.3 :-)
>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Joe Bowser
>>>><bowserj@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>> > >>>>> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Brion Vibber <
>>>> > bvibber@wikimedia.org>
>>>> > >>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> >> >
>>>> > >>>>> >> > I would not mind dropping 2.1; our apps for Wikipedia have
>>>> been
>>>> > 2.2+
>>>> > >>>>> >> anyway
>>>> > >>>>> >> > due to breakages in the 2.1 browser.
>>>> > >>>>> >> >
>>>> > >>>>> >> > 3/3.2 would be slightly sad to miss only because there are
>>>> > Honeycomb
>>>> > >>>>> >> > tablets that haven't received ICS updates, including my
>>>>Galaxy
>>>> > Tab
>>>> > >>>>> 10.1
>>>> > >>>>> >> but
>>>> > >>>>> >> > ... let's be honest there's not a lot of them out there.
>>>>I'm
>>>> > not sure
>>>> > >>>>> >> how
>>>> > >>>>> >> > to blacklist those particular versions in the
>>>>AndroidManifest
>>>> > however
>>>> > >>>>> >> while
>>>> > >>>>> >> > still being compatible with 2.2/2.3...
>>>> > >>>>> >> >
>>>> > >>>>> >>
>>>> > >>>>> >> That's a very good point.  I'm almost convinced that the
>>>>3.1 on
>>>> > >>>>> >> Google's dashboard is literally the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
>>>> > devices
>>>> > >>>>> >> that Google gave away at IO a couple of years ago that were
>>>> pretty
>>>> > >>>>> >> much orphaned by Samsung because they had a broken build.
>>>> > >>>>> >>
>>>> > >>>>> >> By far, Honeycomb was probably the worst version of Android
>>>> ever,
>>>> > and
>>>> > >>>>> >> I've been using it since 1.0 and remember how bad 2.0 was
>>>>when
>>>> it
>>>> > >>>>> >> first came out on the Droid/Milestone.  We can't even
>>>>deprecate
>>>> it
>>>> > >>>>> >> cleanly.
>>>> > >>>>> >>
>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>