+1 for Omar's suggestion.
On Sunday, January 22, 2012, nithya flex <nithya4f...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >
