incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From nithya flex <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] ApacheFlex Versioning (was Re: A newbie's guide to building the SDK (and a question))
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:14:02 GMT
Hi all,

I think Omar correct. Lets not confuse with user byrenaming version.
Because when 2 and 3 version came up it was referred by Adobe flex. When 4
came up it renamed as flash builder 4. I guess it added confusion. lets
continue with Omar suggestion. Anyway we are building older versions, it
should go in incremental order.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Omar Gonzalez <>wrote:

> Hey all,
> First want to say thanks for the great detailed instructions for building
> the SDK source, well done!
> I think now we are at a point where we need to make a decision on the
> versioning numbers. There are already tweets (and blogs probably) talking
> about the source code for the SDK, and because there is no decision on the
> versioning I've already seen a couple of different people use different
> numbers.
> Before this starts getting confusing to users, and before everyone starts
> using the source in the "temp" location, let's make a decision so all the
> guides being written and shared are accurate.
> Here's what I propose for the versioning scheme:
> 4.6.x - I really think we need to reserve these numbers for Adobe to patch
> the last release they put out. There's bound to be some security hole or
> critical bug that pops up and 4.6.0 will need patching.
> 4.7.0 - This should be the first Apache Flex version. Continuing with the
> current scheme would be less confusing to long time Flex users. It also
> sends a message of stability, vital in enterprise software. This version
> should be pretty much identical to what Adobe donated with 4.6.0.
> 4.7.x - These versions should apply bug fixes and improvements that do not
> introduce API breakages, do not add significant new features, components,
> or Spark architecture changes.
> 5.0.x - This version would be our first real baby. Here we are free to
> update, change architectures, add components, etc. This would be where the
> real fun begins.
> I don't really like the proposal to use years, I prefer continuing with
> what we already have going. Like I stated, it feels more stable for the
> SDK, and like they say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
> Thoughts? Do we need a vote for versioning scheme?
> -omar

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message