You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/08 21:22:54 UTC
Next version of Flex SDK
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 4.14.0 and simple
start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
(especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
Thanks,
Om
[1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the feedback, folks. So, 4.14.0, it is :-)
Thanks,
Om
On Dec 8, 2014 2:25 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> +1 with that Peter
>
> Btw, have you also switched to Outlook as I can see the ' are replaced
> with ¹ ?
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> > From: pent@adobe.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
> > Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:18:26 +0000
> >
> > 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 Ent
> > Adobe Systems
> >
> > On 12/8/14, 4:41 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I¹m 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.
> > >
> > >I¹d 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
> > >for a hot fix of a problematic release.
> > >
> > >Harbs
> > >
> >
>
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
+1 with that Peter
Btw, have you also switched to Outlook as I can see the ' are replaced with ¹ ?
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: pent@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next version of Flex SDK
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:18:26 +0000
>
> 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 Ent
> Adobe Systems
>
> On 12/8/14, 4:41 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I¹m 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.
> >
> >I¹d 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
> >for a hot fix of a problematic release.
> >
> >Harbs
> >
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com>.
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 Ent
Adobe Systems
On 12/8/14, 4:41 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I¹m 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.
>
>I¹d 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
>for a hot fix of a problematic release.
>
>Harbs
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
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 for a hot fix of a problematic release.
Harbs
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Chris Martin <ch...@outlook.com>.
Just a thought. I do worry that there may be many companies that have invested in Flash Builder projects who are traditionally slow to move. If we do something to "no longer support Flash Builder", I think we should plan out when that would happen to give the community a chance to switch IDEs. Of course, even if we did, there will be people out there that missed the note and will get bit my us making a change in the SDK that breaks that IDE. So it'd be really more of a "best efforts" sort of thing :)
I spent some time looking for something in the dev-incubator archive list regarding a requirement for the major version of the SDK be "4" and haven't found anything. It did seem we spent some time looking into possibly having Apache Flex 2012.0 as the initial version [1], which would suggest to me that maybe we didn't need 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.ctr@usmc.mil
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Next version of Flex SDK
> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:31:31 +0000
>
> Although I don'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:tc@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 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> > Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Dany Dhondt <ar...@mac.com>.
Very true, indeed, but.... does that mean that from version 5 onwards, FB won't work anymore? Would we have to buy (or hire) another IDE?
Dany
> Op 9-dec.-2014, om 19:27 heeft Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> "Although I don'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."
>
> +10 to that
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J <
> mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil> wrote:
>
>> Although I don'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:tc@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 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>>> Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
>>>
>>> EdB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jesse Nicholson
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com>.
"Although I don'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."
+10 to that
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J <
mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil> wrote:
> Although I don'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:tc@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 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> > Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
> >
> > EdB
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Jesse Nicholson
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
One thing that altering the major version number is the publicity and
public perception that would come from it. Sure, it's just a number, but
according to the Apache rules, we can put out a bonafide press-release that
gets pushed out all the PR channels. Also, with a major version number the
public will finally see a real "Apache" release, and not the /perception/
of us simply maintaining Adobe's releases.
I don't know -- at this point I can't recommend anybody actually use FB for
major projects anymore. As much as I've tried, I can't keep it stable
enough to actually use for any length of time. Almost all the wizards are
broken, they've removed the only compelling feature of the product in 4.7
(DV), and it's compatibility with the newer components we've been putting
out has been lacking.
-Nick
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
> It's not a mute point as getting Adobe to release an update will be a lot
> of work, for us, them and the end users, when there is no need at all to
> alter the major version number.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 10/12/14 11:48, Kessler CTR Mark J wrote:
>
>> So would that mean if FB was incompatible with our version number they
>> would release an update that corrects FB to support it? If the answer is
>> yes, then it's a moot issue about version number for it.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@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 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/enterprise/eol/eol_matrix.html
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
It's not a mute point as getting Adobe to release an update will be a
lot of work, for us, them and the end users, when there is no need at
all to alter the major version number.
Tom
On 10/12/14 11:48, Kessler CTR Mark J wrote:
> So would that mean if FB was incompatible with our version number they would release an update that corrects FB to support it? If the answer is yes, then it's a moot issue about version number for it.
>
> -Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@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 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/enterprise/eol/eol_matrix.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
So would that mean if FB was incompatible with our version number they would release an update that corrects FB to support it? If the answer is yes, then it's a moot issue about version number for it.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@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 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/enterprise/eol/eol_matrix.html
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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/enterprise/eol/eol_matrix.html
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
AFAIK Builder still gets updates. The Adobe white paper has a commitment
to make it continue to work with Apache Flex.
We shouldn't break (any) 3rd party products if we can avoid doing so.
Chris' point is also valid about companies being slow to move
development platforms, and we'd probably trap them into using the last
4.x 'forever'.
And there's no need to bump the major part of a version number. Look at
Java 1.8 ;-)
Tom
On 09/12/14 17:31, Kessler CTR Mark J wrote:
> Although I don'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:tc@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 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>> Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
Although I don'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:tc@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 08/12/14 20:37, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
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 <bi...@gmail.com>
> 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 4.14.0 and simple
>> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>>
>> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
>> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>>
>> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
>>
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Didn't Alex find that the current FB requires the leading 4?
EdB
On Monday, December 8, 2014, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
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 4.14.0 and simple
> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>
> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>
> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
RE: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
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: bigosmallm@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 12:22:54 -0800
> Subject: Next version of Flex SDK
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> 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 4.14.0 and simple
> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>
> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>
> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com>.
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 <su...@leeburrows.com>
wrote:
> 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 risk confusion for new users with similarly numbered but unconnected
> AIR/Flash player versions and 'copying' Adobe could hurt perceptions of our
> independence.
>
> Lee Burrows
> ActionScripter
>
>
> On 08/12/2014 20:22, 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 4.14.0 and simple
>> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>>
>> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
>> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>>
>> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
>>
>>
>
--
Jesse Nicholson
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Subscriptions <su...@leeburrows.com>.
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 risk confusion for new users with similarly numbered but
unconnected AIR/Flash player versions and 'copying' Adobe could hurt
perceptions of our independence.
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter
On 08/12/2014 20:22, 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 4.14.0 and simple
> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>
> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>
> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, jude <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> 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 we have a LOT of changes that we've made since
> the
> > >4.6 release from Adobe, and pushing out a major release would help us
> > >break
> > >away from the "just maintaining Adobe's software" mentality that I've
> been
> > >seeing out in the industry.
> >
> > IMO, FlexJS will help us break away from the “maintaining Adobe”
> mentality
> > because it also removes the dependency on the Adobe runtimes. I don’t
> > currently envision calling FlexJS "Flex 5". IMO, one possible definition
> > of Flex 5 could be adding enough new Spark components that folks don’t
> > need to fall back to MX anymore.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> +1
>
> A shift to all Spark component set would be a major milestone as well as a
> FlexJS release.
>
Here is a list of missing spark components if someone wants to work on
them:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Missing+Spark+Components
Thanks,
Om
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by jude <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> 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 we have a LOT of changes that we've made since the
> >4.6 release from Adobe, and pushing out a major release would help us
> >break
> >away from the "just maintaining Adobe's software" mentality that I've been
> >seeing out in the industry.
>
> IMO, FlexJS will help us break away from the “maintaining Adobe” mentality
> because it also removes the dependency on the Adobe runtimes. I don’t
> currently envision calling FlexJS "Flex 5". IMO, one possible definition
> of Flex 5 could be adding enough new Spark components that folks don’t
> need to fall back to MX anymore.
>
> -Alex
>
>
+1
A shift to all Spark component set would be a major milestone as well as a
FlexJS release.
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
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" <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
>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!)
+1
>
>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 we have a LOT of changes that we've made since the
>4.6 release from Adobe, and pushing out a major release would help us
>break
>away from the "just maintaining Adobe's software" mentality that I've been
>seeing out in the industry.
IMO, FlexJS will help us break away from the “maintaining Adobe” mentality
because it also removes the dependency on the Adobe runtimes. I don’t
currently envision calling FlexJS "Flex 5". IMO, one possible definition
of Flex 5 could be adding enough new Spark components that folks don’t
need to fall back to MX anymore.
-Alex
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
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
(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 we have a LOT of changes that we've made since the
4.6 release from Adobe, and pushing out a major release would help us break
away from the "just maintaining Adobe's software" mentality that I've been
seeing out in the industry.
-Nick
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:22 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
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 4.14.0 and simple
> start versioning our releases as 14, 15, etc.
>
> Technically, we need to make sure that either option would work with IDEs
> (especially Flash Builder) and our own version checking logic in the SDK.
>
> Any thoughts on either of these suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/blob/develop/RELEASE_NOTES
>
Re: Next version of Flex SDK
Posted by Bruce Gardner <br...@spoutsoftware.com>.
I'm wondering how close you are to having a version ready for committed
development.
Please let me know.
Thanks!