Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.39 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "callback-dev@incubator.apache.org" <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:27:34 -0700
Subject: Re: [Android] Android versioning phase-out (2.1 and 3.x)??
Thread-Topic: [Android] Android versioning phase-out (2.1 and 3.x)??
Thread-Index: Ac2Vy0V3qMLp3nOOTMe9/T3g/lctyA==
Message-ID: <CC7E0B22.DFC5%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOBL_k4u4C+wjn2rFh53Mf72FtkNgnfRJvFZEnexzF7X=gu-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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:
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>=20
>>>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!):
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>=20
>>>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:
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>=20
>>>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:
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>=20
>>>http://www.androidcentral.com/telus-bell-and-rogers-samsung-galaxy-tab-1
>>>01-andoid-404-updates-now-available
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>=20
>>>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.
>>> > >>>>> >>
>>> > >>>>> >
>>> > >>>>> >
>>> > >>>>>
>>> >
>>>