I'm on board Omar... that sounds like a good path forward. Not that my vote counts... ;-)
-- Rick Winscot On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Omar Gonzalez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Doug McCune <d...@dougmccune.com > (mailto:d...@dougmccune.com)> wrote: > > > > > > > If we include bug > > > fixes or new features then maybe not. > > > > > > > > > > > One of the reasons for people being optimistic about the move to Apache is > > the opportunity for bugs that people couldn't get Adobe to fix to get > > fixed. To show progress and momentum I'd urge you all to try to fix some > > bugs and get releases out there that people can just drop in, so they'll > > say "Finally, bug XYZ is fixed, thank god this moved to Apache, I see the > > benefit...". If you force everyone to rewrite their apps using the new > > packages throughout you're going to lose those people from your cause. > > > > > This is why I think we should start with two version branches. > > An Apache 4.7.0 branch would be our first release, and should be identical > (as close as the donated code allows) to the final Adobe Flex 4.6.0 > release. In Apache Flex 4.7.0 we would make all those kinds of bug fixes of > things we've all wanted fix that Adobe always Deferred on. > > An Apache 5.0.0 branch would let us hack into the SDK more freely. This is > where we would introduce new components, change the architecture, remove > version checks, etc etc and move with more freedom of legacy. This would > allow us to make decisions like do we want to drop all the Flex 3 and Flex > 4 baggage and only support the new stuff in 5+, etc. I'm in favor of a 5 > over an Apache Flex 1, even though we'd be free of legacy, just for the > sake of conveying the maturity and stability of the framework. > > -omar
