Unfortunately, any .0 release of PhoneGap/Cordova in the past had major bugs and hick ups for me, so my policy is to wait for the (obligatory) .1 release. I would welcome it a lot if we could be a little more humble about the releases and call it a beta, release the beta officially and see what problems people have with it. 3.0 should be a stable, ready-for-production release.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:43 PM, David Lewis <lewi...@gmail.com> 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 <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? > > >
