On 1/22/12 7:11 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <m...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea why Alex suggested years? Was there a reason?
>
> I am in agreement as well with what Omar stated, just curious why Alex
> would deviate from what most developers were expecting.
Because Omar wants to somehow reserve version numbers that Adobe will use.
I do not want to fight that battle right now, if ever.
So I'd recommend a significant jump in version numbers to get some
separation and reduce confusion.
I think it is also a gamble to have two branches and call one of them 5. I
would think if we do enough adds of new components to 4.x without a major
architecture it could still warrant a 5. That's what we were going to do at
Adobe.
I agree with all the negatives of using years though. I'm not sure there is
a great solution. Seems like our choices are:
Use 4.7 and gamble on Adobe future release version names.
Use years.
Use a big version jump 10? 100? 1000?
So to be clear, if you want to see Omar's proposal, remove the clause about
having Adobe reserve names and replace it with a gamble that they will. And
if that's good enough for the majority of you, then that's what we'll do.
I'm fine with gambling on Adobe's version future. I really don't see
anything significant coming out of Adobe related to Flex.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
