incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From nithya flex <nithya4f...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] ApacheFlex Versioning (was Re: A newbie's guide to building the SDK (and a question))
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:07:14 GMT
I want join development team, please guide me

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM, FRANKLIN GARZON <fgarzonhz@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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