Deprecating Android 2.1 Support

117 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Gardner-Stephen

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 12:43:55 AM3/26/12
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

We are currently thinking about deprecating support for Android 2.1 in
our next release, as it solves a few problems for us.

Google statistics suggest that only about 7.5% of devices today are on
Android 2.1 or older, and we expect that this figure will be even
lower by the time we hit official public release around September
2012.

Does anyone see any problems with this? We can't think of any, but
want to make sure we are not committing some heinous error in doing
so.

Thanks,
Paul.

Cathy Ewald

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 12:45:26 AM3/26/12
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com

Agree it is a good move

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en.

Harish Pillay

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:08:50 AM3/28/12
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com

While I think it makes sense, I think it would be useful for a final
stable version for the Android 2.1 be made available before ending
support.

Harish

Paul Gardner-Stephen

unread,
Mar 29, 2012, 2:14:29 AM3/29/12
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
This does make sense. The question is whether there are any models of
phones that run 2.1 only that we support. The HTC/Dream aka G1 can
run CyanogenMod 6, which is 2.2, and thus should be fine.

I expect that 0.08 when the RC is ratified will probably fill that
role of a final 2.1-compatible release.

So, is anyone on the list running our software on an Android 2.1
device, and like to test 0.08 on it?

Paul.

Jeremy Lakeman

unread,
Mar 29, 2012, 4:09:49 AM3/29/12
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Was there something in particular that we needed to change? It
shouldn't be that hard to allow some backwards compatibility.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages