On 7/29/15, 4:12 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/29/15, 3:24 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> >On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala >> ><[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for a release of FlexJS. It would be great to highlight and talk >> >>about >> >> the new version of FlexJS at ApacheCon Europe on Oct 1st, 2015. >> >> >> >> I have been talking to various folks (outside of Apache) about >>FlexJS. >> >>One >> >> feedback I've received is that the version number of 0.02 makes folks >> >>think >> >> that it is not ready to be taken seriously. It is hard to convince >> >>folks >> >> to start using it if it has an 'alpha only' sheen to it. I really >>think >> >> that the next version should be at a 1.0 release. Even if it is not >> >> perfect, the FlexJS already has a lot of strong things going for it. >> I >> >> don't think we should keep it under the covers anymore, i.e. keeping >>it >> >>at >> >> a sub 1.0 release version. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> > >> >Or at least 0.5 or 1.0 alpha. :) I know there are 1000's of hours into >>the >> >compiler/transpiler/eternc side so having it at 0.0.2 really sucks. >> > >> >I know what Carlos is saying but the damn thing need to just have a >> >release, then release again, and again adding things. This isn't a >>fashion >> >show where you get one walk down the ile, it's iterative. Haha >> >> My philosophy is to set expectations low and exceed them. > > >I agree in general, but at this point, the expectations are low enough:-) > We need to start raising them or risk not being ignored by the developer >community. > >I will be giving at least one talk on FlexJS at ApacheCon Europe and >hopefully one more at the HTML5 Dev Conf in San Francisco this year. >Talking up a product which is at version 0.0.3, no matter how good it is >technically is going to be hard. If there is 1.0 version, we could be >using these conferences as launchpads and generate more buzz, thereby >getting more developers trying FlexJS. Which in turn could lead to more >feature requests and overall create a spiral upwards for FlexJS. Or, people will try it, see that it has issues, and never return. There are folks who will keep trying it because they are motivated, and folks who will only give you one chance to make a good impression. I have no idea what kinds of folks we are going to reach at ApacheCon. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, but I don’t think this code is beta quality just yet. > > >> Once I hear >> that folks on this list are actually building things that work with >>FlexJS >> then I’d say we are ready to tell more folks about it by giving it a 1.0 >> version. > > >How many apps do you think it will take to get to that point? I am >planning on building at least one easy to medium sample application that >shows off databinding, layouts, graphs, skinning etc. > >Maybe others can start chipping in by building small examples? IMO, it can’t be an “example”. We have examples in the release. My goal is to actually deploy something somewhere that is useful so we can point to it and say “look, this is working and useful and was built by this technology”. I had a conversation recently with folks from a large company with lots of old Flex code. Their first question was: “is anybody using FlexJS in production?” My sense is they want to make sure somebody has gotten all the way to the end of the road before they start. > > >> My goal after this release is to try to get something useful >> running. I’m sort of leaning toward this still being 0.0.3 and then >> trying to get that something running and call it 0.5 or 0.9 and then if >> someone else is successful that can be 1.0. >> > >In todays world of Chrome 44, Firefox 39, Flash Player 17, etc. version >numbers don't really mean what they used to. IMHO, 1.0 is the new 'Beta'. >A 0.0.3 would be a pre-alpha or a prototype/proof-of-concept which will be >hard to get people excited about. I mean, what product with a version >number less than 1.0 have you used recently? To me, the quality level is still alpha. With more folks contributing we can get to better quality faster. Lots of new JS frameworks have version numbers < 0. Or put it this way: when you try other betas, do they do what Carlos said and work pretty well out of the box? Do we? -Alex
