On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, 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.
We have messaging? I don't think anyone trusts a .0 release ever. Seriously, can you name a .0 release that actually was super polished? > The "beta" / "early adopter" label would mean: > - No 3.0 "final", we can just go with calling "3.1" stable There should still be a 3.0 final, IMO > - 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. > Anyone who expects a major release to be solid is fooling themselves. I'm going to pick on Android, because it's easy to do so. Android 1.0 had a huge series of hilarious bugs, Android 2.0 was so bad that 2.1 had to be rushed out. 3.0 was so half-baked that it was tablet-only, and 4.0 (ICS) still had numerous issues that weren't fully ironed out until Jellybean (4.1). I will save my comments about this release until after it's out, but I do think that we should release 3.0 as a regular release like we release anything else. As far as the platform code is concerned, it's just as solid, it's the CLI that's still an alpha that needs work.
