riginal Message-
>> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:08 AM
>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> AFAIK Builder still gets updates. The Adobe white pape
apache.org
Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Hi,
AFAIK Builder still gets updates. The Adobe white paper has a commitment to
make it continue to work with Apache Flex.
You may be interested in this. [1] Flex Builder 4.7 support goes up to 2018
extended support goes up to 2020.
Justin
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:08 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Hi,
> AFAIK Builder still gets updates. The Adobe white paper has a commitment to
> make it continue to work with Apache Flex.
You may be interested in this. [1] Flex Builder 4.7 supp
Hi,
> AFAIK Builder still gets updates. The Adobe white paper has a commitment to
> make it continue to work with Apache Flex.
You may be interested in this. [1] Flex Builder 4.7 support goes up to 2018
extended support goes up to 2020.
Justin
1. https://www.adobe.com/support/products/enterpr
now from our standpoint 3rd Party. Especially since it's not being updated.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:t...@extravision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:03 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
I thought so too.
Tom
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, jude wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > >That being said -- I wonder what people's opinions are for what
> > >(obtainable) goals we could make so we can make a 5.0 release. I think
> > >it's about due, and it would generate press an
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >That being said -- I wonder what people's opinions are for what
> >(obtainable) goals we could make so we can make a 5.0 release. I think
> >it's about due, and it would generate press and mindshare coming up with a
> >major release. I think
FTR, I checked the archives. I only found that FB didn’t like versions <
4. No idea what will happen if we try 5, 2015, etc.
On 12/9/14, 11:04 AM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" wrote:
>I think for this version, we should stick to being in the 4.x numbering
>scheme. We don't really have that many cha
I think for this version, we should stick to being in the 4.x numbering
scheme. We don't really have that many changes to warrant a major release
(although we do have some pretty nice changes that I'm excited to see
published!)
That being said -- I wonder what people's opinions are for what
(obta
d to worry about keeping the "4" as the major version number.
[1]
http://markmail.org/message/kuy6farnrqyd5sb3#query:+page:1+mid:axrwwcui25qqa2sj+state:results
Chris
> From: mark.kessler....@usmc.mil
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Next version of Flex SDK
>
x27;t think we should be bending over backwards for an IDE that
>> is now from our standpoint 3rd Party. Especially since it's not being
>> updated.
>>
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:t...@extravi
ay, December 09, 2014 11:03 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
>
> I thought so too.
>
> Tom
>
> On 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> > Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Jesse Nicholson
AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
I thought so too.
Tom
On 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
I thought so too.
Tom
On 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
EdB
On Monday, December 8, 2014, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
We have a pretty big release coming up [1]. I am wondering if it is time
to bump up the version number t
> > From: p...@adobe.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
> > Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:18:26 +
> >
> > I think you¹d want to go to a new major version if something really
> > significant changed. For example, an entirely new MXML
I'm wondering how close you are to having a version ready for committed
development.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
+1 with that Peter
Btw, have you also switched to Outlook as I can see the ' are replaced with ¹ ?
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: p...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:18:26 +
>
> I think you¹d want to go
I think you¹d want to go to a new major version if something really
significant changed. For example, an entirely new MXML (e.g., FlexJS
became to default) or major changes to ActionScript. Simply adding new
components and fixed bugs does not, to me, warrant a bump in version from
4 to 5.
Peter E
I’m not a big fan of xx.xx.xx.xx, but I do not see why it should go from 4 to
5. The stability of the major version number in Flex is well grounded.
I’d vote to just make it 4.15 and keep upping the minor number with each
release. The only reason to make a 4.15.1 release (or the like) would be f
I know I'm just some bro on the list here but I'd agree. I don't think you
want to turn the SDK into firefox/chrome, where every time they push the
build button it goes up a full revision. In a month we'll all be browsing
with firefox/chrome 135.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Subscriptions
wrot
Hi
IMO, updating version number from 4 to 5 (or 14 to 15) should be saved
for major changes (think halo to spark). New releases that only contain
a few new features and bug fixes should be relegated to 0.1 numbers.
As for changing the system, my feeling is if it isnt broken dont fix
it... we
Hi Om,
Despite there are a lot (and it is very relative) bugs fixed, I can't see a
good reason why we should go to 5.x, I would even stick on 4.14.x to keep a
maximum of amplitude in case big things happen but I'm open to hear why we
would go to 4.15.0
Thanks,
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: bigosma.
Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
EdB
On Monday, December 8, 2014, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> We have a pretty big release coming up [1]. I am wondering if it is time
> to bump up the version number to 5?
>
> As an alternative, we could simply drop the '4' from 4
23 matches
Mail list logo
