> The problem is, we don't know what 2.x looks like, in the end, so WE HAVE > NO IDEA WHAT WILL CHANGE. Having a separate 2.x stream lets us figure out > what will change, independent of further 1.x releases.
So, we agree there will be change in a software project. =) What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all inclined to +1/-1 until we have agreed on the particulars of the change we seek. I think we can agree on the spirit of the focus of the work being a world of plugins and tooling for automation. We haven't added much outside of battery (and a new platform). 1. The plugin architecture remains completely undocumented. 2. We do not support 3rd party plugins. 3. There is no automation or tooling. Are plugins from an API standpoint stable today? (I'm guessing not when I think of things like addConstructor.) If they aren't stable, undocumented, unsupported by our effort, and a work in progress for tooling: why are we concerned with breaking them? (Take all above with grain of salt, I think having a 2.x branch a good idea, but will slow us down for no direct benefit to Cordova that I can currently see.)
