Unfortunately it is a fact of life that those darn manufacturers do like their secrets to an extent. ;) It seems that your current model of frequent releases might be the best approach to deal with the issues, especially because you are a customer of many different SDKs, all with different release plans, with varying levels of transparency.
I try to keep this up to date as much as I can, but it is not always possible to put everything we are working on in there: https://developer.blackberry.com/html5/download/roadmap/ Look for an update to this sometime later this week... ;) -- Ken Wallis Product Manager – BlackBerry WebWorks Research In Motion (905) 629-4746 x14369 ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Brian LeRoux [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: plan for handling updated device OS versions? I'd love it if we could sync w/ the manufacturers and os vendors but the reality here is we're a customer of their SDKs just like everyone else. As Shaz mentions, we had no idea the new iPhone would change dimensions so even if we did have a policy we'd be lying. As Fil says, we should align our point releases to fall just after an expected release. Again, this is tricky, b/c we never *really* know when something will ship or if something is just being announced for a future date. Having a monthly release cadence seems to be working well enough in any case. One thing is for sure, we want to continue to have a decoupled relationship between our development activity and vendor marketing department activities! On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > We couldn't plan for the iPhone 5 new dimensions / splashscreen that > enabled tall mode. Ideally we should release _after_ the new iOS/device > comes out to iron out the kinks. > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > > > Last time we released 2.1 right _before_ iOS 6 came out (I believe) and > it > > became obvious that we should pay more attention to manufacturer release > > schedules and plan for point releases to be in sync with those. > > > > In general our target has been Cordova support is ready to roll by the > > time the first real device running mobile OS XYZ version 1.2.3 lands in > > consumer hands. > > > > Moving forward I think option #2 you point out below should be the way to > > go (although we don't necessarily have access to beta programs with all > > vendors *cough* Apple *cough*). We will rely on Cordova's committers > > (especially the committers more in charge of owning one particular > > platform) to mention on the mailing list any soon-to-be-released OS > > revisions for their platform and help us schedule point releases > > accordingly. For example the 2.3 planning thread that is floating around > > right now is a good start. We should be doing these sorts of threads > after > > every release IMO. > > > > On 11/5/12 1:15 PM, "Marcel Kinard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >I'm seeing rumors on the web that iOS 6.1 is in the works from Apple and > > >there is a beta that recently opened. Is there any sort of target for > > >handling new device OS versions in Cordova? For example: > > > > > >- Cordova should support a new device OS in the next Cordova version 4-6 > > >weeks after the OS becomes generally available > > >or > > >- through the participation of betas with the device vendor, and careful > > >release scheduling, Cordova should support a new device OS on day 1 that > > >a new OS becomes generally available > > >or > > >- (something else entirely, since these are just examples) > > > > > >The goal here would be to: > > >- provide some general direction to consumers and set realistic > > >expectations. > > >- provide specific direction to the Cordova development community, and > > >give us a target to shoot for. > > >- be consistent in our approach across all the OS vendors (assuming that > > >is desired). > > > > > >Has there been previous discussion on this topic? If not, what are your > > >ideas on this? > > > > > >-- Marcel Kinard > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
