version numbering is a hot topic nowadays. Think of the chrome and linux numberings.. they got a lot faster last year. I personally don't like that, but thats the trend for marketing reasons. I think the years are a good middle-of-the road solution. Flex 2012.1.x in my opinion is better.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > Bertrand, > > > Another related task is figuring out the next version number. Apache Flex > ???. > > Adobe is shipping Adobe Flex 4.6.0 and we can't rule out the possibility > that there might be an Adobe Flex 4.6.x. > > Alex suggested using years which I like. I'm not sure if that means > Apache Flex 2012.1.x or Apache Flex 2012 1.0.x, or some variant. > > Carol > > On 1/18/12 8 :57AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as> > >wrote: > >> I forgot you can't downvote within JIRA... I'll do it here... > >> > >> -1 > > > >Note that FLEX-7 doesn't say that a package rename must happen now, > >nor that it should be discussed now - it's just something that must be > >clarified before graduation. There's no hurry to discuss it. > > > >-Bertrand > >
