>Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think Apache Flex should make a release of FlexUnit,
>but it doesn't have to be a "parity" release. I don't know what pull requests
>are outstanding, so I trust your >judgement on whether anything outstanding
>might scare folks away. If not, I don't see why the first
On 8/2/13 11:43 AM, "labri...@digitalprimates.net"
wrote:
>>I think folks may trust us by now, so it may not be worth making a
>>parity release.
>
>Alex,
>
>The only counter point I offer is that, if we had a parity release with
>the Apache name (or even a release that integrated some of the ex
>I think folks may trust us by now, so it may not be worth making a parity
>release.
Alex,
The only counter point I offer is that, if we had a parity release with the
Apache name (or even a release that integrated some of the existing pull
requests) people might begin associating the project w
IMO, we did an SDK parity release because:
1) we wanted to assure customers that we weren't going to break anything
or do anything crazy wild with the code
2) there were lots of pieces that needed integration (TLF, MXMLC, OSMF,
BlazeDS, etc)
3) we wanted to make sure we had everything we needed fro
>There are still a few things to do. I'd say we need decide if we just create a
>parity release (like >sdk 4.8 release) or already add some of the pull
>requests:
One of the open topics is the tutorials. While eventually it would be great to
get everything in place, if you were to exclude the l
