Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of windowns@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <488A21CEB8EB429BBDC2A9B7D0291E12@gmail.com>
References: <2e35e50e$77d017e$459c38c$@com>
	<AC68A0C1C1A6495A8A14B40A42E4160D@gmail.com>
	<CAEsjxkJ10X3fujdgm_WmHy0yDj7mQhf-5Y-AZUak534LMy49vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<488A21CEB8EB429BBDC2A9B7D0291E12@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:35:17 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAEsjxkL4U+=sKUTJft1kUQrqACjgFwXD77tSKk-_fp18cWAC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: jira task to decide on Apache Flex version number needed
From: Chris Martin <windowns@gmail.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yeah,  i just caught the task entry.  Sorry I just joined today.  IF
Adobe plan on continuing with their version numbers, then we should be
mindful of that.  Having "Adobe Flex SDK 4.6.1" and "Apache Flex
4.6.1" would confuse developers.

I still think that version numbers like major.minor.minor.build are
more useful than the "date stamp" method (2012.1) because i think a
version number should only be for versioning and not reference dates
as people could get confused with "what that when it was released?"
etc.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Rick Winscot <rick.winscot@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out=
 the Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we ar=
e loosing track of the fact that what we are doing here in all likelihood i=
s _not_ going to be a drop-in replacement for Flex 4.6.
>
> Am I incorrect in that conclusion?
>
> --
> Rick Winscot
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of continuity of the version number. That's it. Like
>> if we ended up doing a huge revamp/improvement/enhancement/whatever,
>> we'd move from version 4.x to version 5.1.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Rick Winscot <rick.winscot@gmail.com (m=
ailto:rick.winscot@gmail.com)> wrote:
>> > Continuity of what? There's still a ton of mx in the spark code-base, =
functionality is divided among nearly a dozen version numbers, bugs abound.=
..
>> >
>> > What of this do you want to maintain going forward?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rick Winscot
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Rui Silva wrote:
>> >
>> > > > From: "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com (mailto:aharui@adobe.com)>
>> > > > The first release, even if it is
>> > > > just approximate parity with Adobe Flex 4.6 would be called "Apach=
e Flex
>> > > > 2012". Any other release cut this year would be a point release
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ("Apache
>> > > > Flex 2012.1")
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Alex Harui
>> > > > Flex SDK Team
>> > > > Adobe Systems, Inc.
>> > > > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'd vote on 4.7. It conveys a stronger idea of continuity.
>