I'm not in favor of of this. The basic flows work. There should be visibility into these perceived issues in the form of blog post.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM, 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? >>
