Anyone who thinks we don't need 2.3 support needs to look at what I
was considering purchasing for my US phone when on road trips to weird
places like Idaho:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/prepay/getPhoneDetail.do?item=prepayItem&selectedPhoneId=6093&selectedPlanCatId=4997

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Michael Wolf <michael.w...@cynergy.com> wrote:
> Generally we are pushing clients to not touch anything lower than 2.3 (And
> having serious discussions about their need for 2.3 support).  So from a
> cordova users perspective this wouldn't bother me.
>
> mw
>
>
> On 4/10/13 2:10 PM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Android 2.2 is a pain point because we only have one device in the
>>Vancouver office that is on that version of Android (LG Optimus 3D).
>>I'm sure that other places have more of them, but they are becoming
>>increasingly rare, and I'd rather us only have to test 2.3 and higher
>>when we prepare for a release.
>>
>>On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Braden Shepherdson
>><bra...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Do we have a picture of what this would gain us? What are the pain
>>>points
>>> in terms of bugs or missing APIs between 2.2 and 2.3? I have the vague
>>> impression that there are several things, but I actually don't know.
>>>
>>> If there are advantages, I'm all for it.
>>>
>>> Braden
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey
>>>>
>>>> Good news everyone! Android 2.2 (Froyo) has dipped below 5%.  This
>>>> means that we can safely drop support for this version of Android and
>>>> set our lower bound to Android 2.3.  The cool thing about this is that
>>>> we will only support devices that you can actually buy in a store at
>>>> this point, which I think is something that we should aim towards.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, if Key Lime Pie figured out a way to get 4.x functionality
>>>> on single-core devices, that'd be awesome, but I highly doubt it. :(
>>>>
>>>> So, what do people think about getting rid of Froyo support?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>

Reply via email to