incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From FRANKLIN GARZON <fgarzo...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] ApacheFlex Versioning (was Re: A newbie's guide to building the SDK (and a question))
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:59:28 GMT

I Suggest put in 2 ways the versions, like some very big companies, a version system like:
For developers and major control:
Use the Omer proposal, it's basic and necesary absolutly.
For commercial and more friendly understand:
Use the year. For example:
Apache Flex 2012  (v4.6.x)
Apache Flex 2012 (v 4.7.x)
Apache Flex 2013 (v5.0.x)
Of course this is  the community, but we need to think also in the commercial way appart to
not get any special payment. But is a community marketing, also think in the future events
you can say: The event of Flex 2012, more marketing no?

 
Franklin Garzón
 
Regional Team Leader

MCTS - MCITP  Microsoft SQLServer 2005

 
*Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
 
094496862 / 593-022234585
 
 
 > From: joan.llenas.maso@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:17:23 +0100
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ApacheFlex Versioning (was Re: A newbie's guide to building the
SDK (and a question))
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> From a developer standpoint is less problematic to use years.
> From a product standpoint has less impact because users always know what to
> expect.
> 
> 
> --
> Joan Llenas Masó
> http://joan.garnet.io
> @joangarnet (es)
> @joanllenas (en)
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 16:11, Michael Schmalle <mike@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone have any idea why Alex suggested years? Was there a reason?
> >
> > I am in agreement as well with what Omar stated, just curious why Alex
> > would deviate from what most developers were expecting.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > Quoting Yennick Trevels <yennick.trevels@gmail.com>:
> >
> >  Simple, logical and easy to understand for "the outside world". Perfect
> >> imo.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Jonathan Campos <jonbcampos@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  It is also what I thought from the beginning.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > This version number scheme has been in my mind the entire time.  It
> >>> makes
> >>> > complete sense.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Nick
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@dot-com-it.com
> >>> > >wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On 1/22/2012 9:44 AM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Thoughts? Do we need a vote for versioning scheme?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> > >  This approach seems logical enough to me and I have nothing else
to
> >>> add.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Jeffry Houser
> >>> > > Technical Entrepreneur
> >>> > > 203-379-0773
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > http://www.flextras.com?c=104
> >>> > > UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > http://www.theflexshow.com
> >>> > > http://www.jeffryhouser.com
> >>> > > http://www.asktheflexpert.com
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jonathan Campos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message