I'm hearing ".0 releases are always flawed, so it's fine for ours to be too". We should instead try to avoid falling into/perpetuating a pattern that we can all agree is unfortunate.
Publicizing this release as beta is a solid step in this direction—the responsibility should be ours to be clear about the state of a release, not the user's to have to be constantly wary. Also, known-issue visibility in blog post form does sound good. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > 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? > >> >
