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?
