Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AD2AB891 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14664 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2012 14:58:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14639 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2012 14:58:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 14631 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2012 14:58:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:58:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jonbcampos@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.175] (HELO mail-tul01m020-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:58:32 +0000 Received: by obbuo9 with SMTP id uo9so2398868obb.6 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:58:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Fv29NxGRcfl6RlPnsMV864FEn9sFJV09nfnCmo7alPk=; b=xaq8XXKgTdo+B8ztBl7fcevwbBZMshnDeQekWEEf426h6w9JEiwr6M/msiWzfbtiDU IffKW5nTH+nAHpQcikfI75OYGNATQzaifbAn3VL+XDdFuR1sjcuUXvCIj99DIbFdqSrg dxS58H3i0/6hLBSLNp97GhhtshQpHOVrWANOE= Received: by 10.182.150.66 with SMTP id ug2mr4773358obb.68.1327244291344; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:58:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.51.232 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:57:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F1C21A2.9050504@dot-com-it.com> From: Jonathan Campos Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:57:51 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] ApacheFlex Versioning (was Re: A newbie's guide to building the SDK (and a question)) To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0447952984075704b71f24fe X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d0447952984075704b71f24fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It is also what I thought from the beginning. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski 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 >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 --f46d0447952984075704b71f24fe--