I would be shocked if we've done all the breaking we're going to do :-) Seems like at least the changes to make everything a plugin and provide tooling around plugins will at a minimum change the format of how plugins are provided and the documentation on how to install them, which I would consider breaks.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at the proposed [1] roadmap [2] ....I'm not sure there's much > left to break!!! (As in, I think we "done broke" all the things > already.) > > Feels like the consensus is that our focus in the coming months > leading to 2x is to be: docs, tests, "hardening" the code and tools > for managing the plugins themselves. > > [1] http://goo.gl/1yAjD > [2] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/RoadmapProjects > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree with Fil, there is not that much that is broken with recent changes. >> I think deprecation notices would be sufficient, and we can maintain those >> interfaces until 2.0. ( in the past I think we were too quick with >> deprecating and destroying ) >> IMHO maintaining 2 branches would make life worse, not better. ( for our >> users, not just us ) >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Patrick Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 14:44, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Before we put this to a vote, I'd like to hear a precise description >>> > of the methodology being proposed. Right now I envision 'huge merge >>> > rebase hell' but maybe I'm making a mountain of a molehill. >>> > >>> >>> Fair enough. And I understand your concern. >>> >>> I'll write up a proposal on the wiki, and post a new top-level thread on >>> the m/l when I got something. >>> >>> -- >>> Patrick Mueller >>> http://muellerware.org >>>
