Im +1 on this
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: 18 January 2012 19:45
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Arnoud Bos
Subject: Re: jira task to decide on Apache Flex
version number needed
I just got confirmation that FlashBuilder will not
be using years
> From: "Peter Elst"
>
> (...) an experimental branch of the Flex
> framework that we can get feedback on to see what works and what doesn't
> before it goes into the core code base.
>
> - Peter
I generally agree with this idea, as long as we are aware of the cost
required to maintain two main
> If you force everyone to rewrite their apps using the new
> > packages throughout you're going to lose those people from your cause.
>
> A huge agree on this. This will foster adoption of the new framework and
> build momentum for its evolution.
Very good point and I agree, I would be careful
> From: "Doug McCune"
>
> One of the reasons for people being optimistic about the move to Apache
is
> the opportunity for bugs that people couldn't get Adobe to fix to get
> fixed. To show progress and momentum I'd urge you all to try to fix some
> bugs and get releases out there that people can
> From: "Rick Winscot"
> Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out
the Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we are
loosing track of the fact that what we are doing here in all likelihood is
_not_ going to be a drop-in replacement for
>
> But that could also happen if
> we later found the winning logo had an infringement we hadn't considered.
That's not really true, you could just use the second place one. But OK :)
On 1/18/12 2:50 PM, "Rick Winscot" wrote:
> So... is this bad enough that the logo contest need to be put on hold?
No, I would've already spoken up if that was the case. But there is a
chance we'll have to hold another one later. But that could also happen if
we later found the winning logo
So... is this bad enough that the logo contest need to be put on hold?
--
Rick Winscot
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/18/12 2:34 PM, "Jonathan Campos" (mailto:jonbcam...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> > Going back through the videos I haven't been able t
On 1/18/12 2:34 PM, "Jonathan Campos" wrote:
> Going back through the videos I haven't been able to find it. You are right
> that it wasn't promised. The name issue was specifically brought up (by me
> it seems) and it was said that it will need to get worked out but Adobe
> intends to contrib
abriola"
wrote:
> +1
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnoud Bos [mailto:arn...@artim-interactive.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:53 PM
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: jira task to decide on Apache Flex version number needed
>
> y
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Can you remind me who it was that
> promised it would be donated?
>
Going back through the videos I haven't been able to find it. You are right
that it wasn't promised. The name issue was specifically brought up (by me
it seems) and it was sai
On 1/18/12 12:04 PM, "Jonathan Campos" wrote:
>
> We were assured at Flex summit that the trademark would be donated. This is
> really sad if that can't happen.
I remember discussions about the trademark being weak so Apache could
probably use Flex as the project name. Can you remind me who
I like Omar's idea of having a 4.7 release which would be as close as
possible to what we received from Adobe (4.6).
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/18/12 12:10 PM, "Rick Winscot" wrote:
>
>> Really... with what I've outlined - is there any reason we can't / shoul
On 1/18/12 12:10 PM, "Rick Winscot" wrote:
> Really... with what I've outlined - is there any reason we can't / shouldn't
> do a reset?
I haven't thought it through, but the version checks are there to avoid
breaking someone's app. Seems like we don't want to muck with that too
soon.
--
Ale
On 1/18/12 12:33 PM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
> It depends. We've talked about doing a release as soon as all the code
> gets here so we can make sure we didn't break anything. If that's the
> case then maybe yes, you could swap one for the other. If we include bug
> fixes or new features th
This is essential what we were doing here at Adobe. We had a 4.y branch
and a trunk branch which was 5.0. The gotcha is that you have to keep
merging all bug fixes from the 4.y branch to trunk (or at least determine
the code changed and a merge isn't needed).
Carol
On 1/18/12 4 :04PM, "Rick Win
+1
-Original Message-
From: Arnoud Bos [mailto:arn...@artim-interactive.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:53 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: jira task to decide on Apache Flex version number needed
yup exactly how i feel about this.
Remember that moving from flex
yup exactly how i feel about this.
Remember that moving from flex 3 to 4 was a major overhaul.
And as a result the conversion from flex3 to flex4 of big projects is expensive.
My project leader on the last project was not happy about the time it costed to
convert the
big project to the new flex
I'm on board Omar... that sounds like a good path forward. Not that my vote
counts... ;-)
--
Rick Winscot
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Doug McCune (mailto:d...@dougmccune.com)> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If we include bug
> >
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
> conveying the maturity and stability of the framework.
I'm with Omar on this. This plan provides the easiest migration path and
supports are enterprise clients that need support for 3.x and 4.x branches.
5.x will be something different and
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Doug McCune wrote:
> >
> > If we include bug
> > fixes or new features then maybe not.
>
>
> One of the reasons for people being optimistic about the move to Apache is
> the opportunity for bugs that people couldn't get Adobe to fix to get
> fixed. To show progre
>
> If we include bug
> fixes or new features then maybe not.
One of the reasons for people being optimistic about the move to Apache is
the opportunity for bugs that people couldn't get Adobe to fix to get
fixed. To show progress and momentum I'd urge you all to try to fix some
bugs and get rele
Yeah, i just caught the task entry. Sorry I just joined today. IF
Adobe plan on continuing with their version numbers, then we should be
mindful of that. Having "Adobe Flex SDK 4.6.1" and "Apache Flex
4.6.1" would confuse developers.
I still think that version numbers like major.minor.minor.bu
On 1/18/12 3 :28PM, "Rick Winscot" wrote:
>Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out
>the Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we
>are loosing track of the fact that what we are doing here in all
>likelihood is _not_ going to be a drop-
I see a lot of checks like these all over the sdk code, third party
libraries (and our own codebase):
if(FlexVersion.compatibilityVersion < FlexVersion.VERSION_3_0 )
{
...
}
if(FlexVersion.compatibilityVersion < FlexVersion.VERSION_4_0)
{
...
}
and so on...
Moving to a year based version number
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Rick Winscot wrote:
> Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out
> the Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we are
> loosing track of the fact that what we are doing here in all likelihood is
> _not_ going
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Rick Winscot wrote:
> Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out
> the Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we are
> loosing track of the fact that what we are doing here in all likelihood is
> _not_ going
Is anyone under the impression that they are going to be able to swap out the
Adobe Flex 4.6 SDK for Apache Flex 4.7 without issues??? I think we are loosing
track of the fact that what we are doing here in all likelihood is _not_ going
to be a drop-in replacement for Flex 4.6.
Am I incorrect
I was thinking of continuity of the version number. That's it. Like
if we ended up doing a huge revamp/improvement/enhancement/whatever,
we'd move from version 4.x to version 5.1.
Chris
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Rick Winscot wrote:
> Continuity of what? There's still a ton of mx in the
Continuity of what? There's still a ton of mx in the spark code-base,
functionality is divided among nearly a dozen version numbers, bugs abound...
What of this do you want to maintain going forward?
--
Rick Winscot
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Rui Silva wrote:
> > From: "Ale
Alex
I mentioned a version reset... this would be in name only. Read on... ( I know
you already know this - but for anyone that doesn't )
The Flex SDK uses mx.core.FlexVersion.as which is tied to mx.core.Version.as -
a part of the mx_internal package. There are 200+ hits in Flex SDK v4.5.1 wher
On 19/01/2012 05:04, Jonathan Campos wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
The trademark is not donated at this time. Legal is still looking into it.
There is still no guarantee that Flex will be the final project name, but I
continue to be hopeful.
We were assured at Fl
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> The trademark is not donated at this time. Legal is still looking into it.
> There is still no guarantee that Flex will be the final project name, but I
> continue to be hopeful.
>
We were assured at Flex summit that the trademark would be do
On 1/18/12 8:56 AM, "peter.e...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Isn't the trademark donated etc.
The trademark is not donated at this time. Legal is still looking into it.
There is still no guarantee that Flex will be the final project name, but I
continue to be hopeful.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Ado
On 1/18/12 8:59 AM, "Csomák Gábor" wrote:
> Adobe will finish 4.6, then donate that as well. Then we can use it, and
> Flex is completely under Apache.
That is not correct. 4.6 is finished and in the process of being donated.
But Adobe will still have its own code base to support its paid sup
We use the year approach in our software, but in terms of identifying
major releases we always end up referring to the last number which
never resets as the years pass. I never caught on to the "date"
versioning method. Everything gets a date stamp anyways. I too like
the idea of continuity from
On 1/18/12 9:04 AM, "João Fernandes"
wrote:
> Shouldn't any bug fixing by Adobe be directly applied to the Apache Flex
> project once we get the code?
There is a separate team in Adobe tasked with supporting Adobe Flex 4.6.
They are not committers so they cannot work directly in Apache Flex.
On 1/18/2012 2:45 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 1/18/12 10:53 AM, "Arnoud Bos" wrote:
Yeah I would go for a 4.7 initial apache flex release too.
Especially because i sense the general intension here is to release a few
compatible versions first.
It's just less confusing IMHO.
Arnoud
I just got co
> From: "Alex Harui"
> The first release, even if it is
> just approximate parity with Adobe Flex 4.6 would be called "Apache Flex
> 2012". Any other release cut this year would be a point release
("Apache
> Flex 2012.1")
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs
On 1/18/12 10:53 AM, "Arnoud Bos" wrote:
> Yeah I would go for a 4.7 initial apache flex release too.
> Especially because i sense the general intension here is to release a few
> compatible versions first.
> It's just less confusing IMHO.
>
> Arnoud
I just got confirmation that FlashBuilder
Yeah I would go for a 4.7 initial apache flex release too.
Especially because i sense the general intension here is to release a few
compatible versions first.
It's just less confusing IMHO.
Arnoud
On 18-01-2012, at 18:05, Peter Elst wrote:
>> I had the same initial reaction... but we also
On 1/18/12 10:08 AM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" wrote:
> I would expect Adobe to make any patches, security or otherwise, to the
> Apache codebase and release based on that.
That probably won't happen. Adobe has to have a "fork" so it can control
the source it is working with, and the folks who w
We have been discussing this recently here at Adobe.
We have an open action item to figure out what process we want to use to
get code changes made to Adobe Flex over to Apache Flex.
Carol
On 1/18/12 1 :08PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" wrote:
>I would expect Adobe to make any patches, security or o
I would expect Adobe to make any patches, security or otherwise, to the
Apache codebase and release based on that. That way we don't get an Adobe
fork of the framework that has different code, different features or
different security configurations. If these changes are made here, then
there will
Omar
Adobe still has maintenance interest in previous releases...
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb11-25.html
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/915/cpsid_91544.html
I'm not sure that skipping a point release ahead is enough elbow-room to
prevent collisions. This is another reason I
Adobe has stated that JIRA issues with security problems would not be
ported to our JIRA. I think they are not porting those, obviously, because
then big gaping security holes would be out in the open that they probably
don't want the public to know about... I know the project's been donated,
but t
On 18 Jan 2012, at 16:56, Peter Elst wrote:
> wow, really - potentially a Flex 4.6.x released under the Adobe name? Not
> sure what to think about that, was under the assumption no Flex was
> completely under Apache now.
For as long as there are support contracts in effect, I'd guess Adobe might
I guess Adobe will always be free to release ADOBE Flex number here>.
Under the name Apache the first release number should be chosen by features.
yours
Martin.
On 19/01/2012 02:04, Carol Frampton wrote:
On 1/18/12 12 :01PM, "Omar Gonzalez" wrote:
I think we have to assume there
will be a s
AFAIK Adobe stated that they will continue to provide support for Flex
4.6 for existing customers (i.e. key accounts with enterprise support)
so I expect that they add fixes / additions to Adobe Flex. Do we need
to backport them to Apache Flex? Don't know. Also, there's this CS SDK
which I personal
> I had the same initial reaction... but we also have to remember that 4.6
> is still Adobe Flex 4.6, and if this branch has security holes Adobe is
> going to want to close those. The only safe way of doing that is to patch
> 4.6.0 or 4.6.1, cause if Apache is at 4.7 and we've changed things they'
On 1/18/12 12 :01PM, "Omar Gonzalez" wrote:
>I think we have to assume there
>will be a security fix that Adobe will need to apply to 4.6.x at some
>point
>eventually, no?
Yes. Adobe is not planning a 4.6.x release but you need to leave them the
space to do that if there is a need for one.
I
Shouldn't any bug fixing by Adobe be directly applied to the Apache Flex
project once we get the code?
I don't see placing requirements on Adobe development flying very far...
historically, version numbers have been used to fix version-specific bugs:
if ( version == SOME_CONSTANT )
{
// fix a version specific behavior...
}
I haven't seen any of these checks at a point-release or build level. Ju
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Peter Elst wrote:
> > Adobe is shipping Adobe Flex 4.6.0 and we can't rule out the possibility
> > that there might be an Adobe Flex 4.6.x.
>
>
> wow, really - potentially a Flex 4.6.x released under the Adobe name? Not
> sure what to think about that, was under t
Adobe will finish 4.6, then donate that as well. Then we can use it, and
Flex is completely under Apache.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Peter Elst wrote:
> > Adobe is shipping Adobe Flex 4.6.0 and we can't rule out the possibility
> > that there might be an Adobe Flex 4.6.x.
>
>
> wow, really
Apache Flex is about to become the main distributor for the open source
project Flex. It was before at Adobe.
As long as the current version contains only bugfixes, I'd say: 4.6.x -
As soon as there are new features 4.7
and as soon as there are major new concepts 5.x.
But that being said: I thi
Op 18-jan.-2012, om 17:45 heeft Carol Frampton het volgende geschreven:
> Alex suggested using years which I like. I'm not sure if that means
> Apache Flex 2012.1.x or Apache Flex 2012 1.0.x, or some variant.
Yes, but when there is a 2012.x version release at the end of december, people
migh
> Adobe is shipping Adobe Flex 4.6.0 and we can't rule out the possibility
> that there might be an Adobe Flex 4.6.x.
wow, really - potentially a Flex 4.6.x released under the Adobe name? Not
sure what to think about that, was under the assumption no Flex was
completely under Apache now. Isn't th
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Omar Gonzalez
wrote:
> Updates and changes done by Apache that are still based on the 4.x
> architecture should probably fall under 4.7.x, which would retain also the
> original "spark.components..." namespace.
>
> Then if/when we make major feature additions or a
Perhaps we should try to have some sort of agreement with the Adobe folks
that would result in reserving the 4.6.x version numbers for any possible
updates they may need to do to that branch.
Updates and changes done by Apache that are still based on the 4.x
architecture should probably fall under
version numbering is a hot topic nowadays. Think of the chrome and linux
numberings.. they got a lot faster last year. I personally don't like
that, but thats the trend for marketing reasons.
I think the years are a good middle-of-the road solution. Flex 2012.1.x in
my opinion is better.
On Wed,
61 matches
Mail list logo
