I think if we're waiting 6 months, it would be good to deprecate 3.x now. That way in 6 months if we want to drop it, we can.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, How about we do the following: > > 1. Announce that 2.1 will be dropped six months from now, as per our > deprecation policy > 2. Keep support for Android 3.x for the time being and watch to see > the percentages drop > > Honestly, I think our deprecation policy is far too long, but given > how it was created, I understand the reason for it. What do people > think? > > Joe > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Brooks > <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote: > >> > >> 1. We are having a tough time finding and keeping Android 2.1 devices > >> (most get upgraded to 2.3 or just die) > > > > > > This is a pain-point that I've felt many times. When I have found a > device, > > there are enough "quirks" on the browser that it's not worth the > > development time to support the small percentage of users. Usually, I've > > end up supporting 2.3+. > > > > +1 for dropping 2.1. > > > > I'll abstain from voting on Honeycomb because I have very little > experience > > with that tablet / Android OS. > > > > Michael > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org > >wrote: > > > >> If manufacturers and carriers are rescuing the Galaxy Tabs (the only > >> Honeycomb device with any real penetration, I think) then we can justify > >> dropping support for it eventually. On the other hand, if the only thing > >> stopping it is hardware acceleration, we could easily turn hardware > >> acceleration back on and have a "how to fix Honeycomb" doc as Andrew > >> suggested. > >> > >> +1 to dropping 2.1 > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 for dropping 2.1 > >> > +1 for dropping 3.whatever-it-was honeycomb > >> > > >> > ...in 2.2 or should we issue a general warning and wait a couple of > >> > releases? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > Apparently the wifi tablets were only updated last week to ICS (the > 3G > >> > > updates came first). Also, manual update: > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-tab-10-1-p7510-android-4-0-4-ics-uelpl-update-official-110369/ > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Verizon just announced today (yes today!): > >> > >> > >> > > >> > http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/09/17/verizon-galaxy-tab-10-1-ice-cream-sandwich-update-rolling-out-now/ > >> > >> > >> > >> T-mobile announced 2 weeks back: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/03/t-mobile-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-android-ics-update/ > >> > >> > >> > >> Apparently its available in Canada since end of August 2012: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > http://www.androidcentral.com/telus-bell-and-rogers-samsung-galaxy-tab-101-andoid-404-updates-now-available > >> > >> > >> > > >> > http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/GeneralCareSupport/message-id/355 > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Simon MacDonald > >> > >> <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Me either. My Galaxy 10.1 Tab is still running 3.1. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Simon Mac Donald > >> > >>> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> Funny, I never got that update. > >> > >>>> On Sep 17, 2012 5:34 PM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> Talking about the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Anis KADRI < > anis.ka...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > That was last year and Samsung has updated them to 4.0.3 :-) > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Joe Bowser < > bows...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Brion Vibber < > >> > bvib...@wikimedia.org> > >> > >>>>> >> wrote: > >> > >>>>> >> > > >> > >>>>> >> > I would not mind dropping 2.1; our apps for Wikipedia have > >> been > >> > 2.2+ > >> > >>>>> >> anyway > >> > >>>>> >> > due to breakages in the 2.1 browser. > >> > >>>>> >> > > >> > >>>>> >> > 3/3.2 would be slightly sad to miss only because there are > >> > Honeycomb > >> > >>>>> >> > tablets that haven't received ICS updates, including my > Galaxy > >> > Tab > >> > >>>>> 10.1 > >> > >>>>> >> but > >> > >>>>> >> > ... let's be honest there's not a lot of them out there. > I'm > >> > not sure > >> > >>>>> >> how > >> > >>>>> >> > to blacklist those particular versions in the > AndroidManifest > >> > however > >> > >>>>> >> while > >> > >>>>> >> > still being compatible with 2.2/2.3... > >> > >>>>> >> > > >> > >>>>> >> > >> > >>>>> >> That's a very good point. I'm almost convinced that the 3.1 > on > >> > >>>>> >> Google's dashboard is literally the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 > >> > devices > >> > >>>>> >> that Google gave away at IO a couple of years ago that were > >> pretty > >> > >>>>> >> much orphaned by Samsung because they had a broken build. > >> > >>>>> >> > >> > >>>>> >> By far, Honeycomb was probably the worst version of Android > >> ever, > >> > and > >> > >>>>> >> I've been using it since 1.0 and remember how bad 2.0 was > when > >> it > >> > >>>>> >> first came out on the Droid/Milestone. We can't even > deprecate > >> it > >> > >>>>> >> cleanly. > >> > >>>>> >> > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >>>>> > >> > > >> >
