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 <omarg.develo...@gmail.com>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. > > PROPOSAL: > 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 >
