Blog post on rough edges of 3.0 with pointers to the issue tracker is really all we need to do here. I suspect more committers are using IDE's like Eclipse, Xcode, and Android Studio than are web developers building mobile apps. Any other bugs I'm reading for 3.0 are not showstopping from a platform perspective but there are definite revisions needed to be in the plugin user space.
That said, we should make sure tests are passing before committing stuff to master so that it doesn't feel so scrambly when we do cut a release. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Max Woghiren <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm hearing ".0 releases are always flawed, so it's fine for ours to be > too". We should instead try to avoid falling into/perpetuating a pattern > that we can all agree is unfortunate. > > Publicizing this release as beta is a solid step in this direction—the > responsibility should be ours to be clear about the state of a release, not > the user's to have to be constantly wary. > > Also, known-issue visibility in blog post form does sound good. > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not in favor of of this. The basic flows work. There should be >> visibility into these perceived issues in the form of blog post. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, David Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >> > This is why I'm upgrading from 2.5 to 2.9 now. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> As I'm going through all of the polish details, reading through the >> upgrade >> >> guides, and thinking about API-type things that we'd still like to >> change, >> >> I'm wondering if it would be wise to message 3.0 as an "early-adopter" >> or >> >> "beta" release. >> >> >> >> One prime example of something that I think people will get tripped up >> by >> >> is that when you use Xcode or Eclipse, your changes will be often blown >> >> away by "cordova prepare". I think we should explore solutions to this >> >> (e.g. in Xcode, have the project reference the root www/ and merges/ >> >> instead of the derived one). Another thing we could do is rename www -> >> >> derived_www/. >> >> >> >> The "beta" / "early adopter" label would mean: >> >> - No 3.0 "final", we can just go with calling "3.1" stable >> >> - User expectations will be that CLI may have bugs or rough edges (e.g. >> >> when you remove a platform, any modifications you make will be deleted) >> >> (e.g. I don't think there's a way to "plugin ls" that shows the @src of >> >> your plugins - URL+hash+subdir) (e.g. There is no way yet for apps to >> >> depend on plugins by adding them to your config.xml & typing "cordova >> >> plugin sync") >> >> >> >> >> >> Usually major releases come with the expectation that they are better & >> >> more solid & worthy of attention. I feel like 3.0 will be more of an >> alpha >> >> in terms of quality / stability of code changing. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >>
