1

There have been several point releases of Honeycomb, and we have tags to match.

Unlike the move from Eclair to Froyo, or Froyo to Gingerbread, these updates weren't major enough to warrant a new codename.

I think that the tags should be merged into .

(Similarly, [2.0-eclair] and [2.1-eclair] could be merged to 2.x-eclair].)

Your thoughts, please.

1

Good question. While the changes are not neglectable, most changes are in fact development related. But this was also the situation with older version updates, where AN.SX still keeps distinguishable tags.

I am not completely decided, but I tend to vote for keeping the honeycomb tags separated.

0

I'm not familiar with Honeycomb and assumed that 3.0 vs 3.1 was more akin to 2.2 vs 2.3 than it was to 2.3.3 vs 2.3.4. If the opposite is the case then the merge and rename to 3.x-honeycomb makes sense to me!

The 2.0-eclair -> 2.1-eclair mapping is a sure thing, I went ahead and did that bit now. Almost no one uses 2.0, and 2.x implies 2.2 and 2.3 are included, so I think there will be less confusion if left as 2.1-eclair.

(Follow a consistent numbering scheme, Google!)

  • Oh, good point about the 2.x. I must have had a vapor lock when I forgot about Froyo and Gingerbread. – ale Oct 26 '11 at 19:04
  • I think the only real end-user change that took place in the 3.x iterations was the app zooming functionality in 3.2. Almost everything else was developer-facing changes to the APIs. That being said, I'm kind of indifferent. – eldarerathis Oct 26 '11 at 23:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .