This is why I'm upgrading from 2.5 to 2.9 now.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> 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? >
