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 the previous 4.6 version, so the new one
would be 4.7 I also agree with Jeffry about having version numbers
hold more meaning. Like "wow that's version 3 so it's missing
features x, y, and z.
Chris Martin
InfoSol Inc.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/2012 2:45 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>> On 1/18/12 10:53 AM, "Arnoud Bos"<arn...@artim-interactive.nl> 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 will not be using years, so my
>> proposal is that Apache Flex uses years. 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")
>
>
> Is there any other software that uses the "year" approach. ( Aside from
> Windows 2000/2003, etc..)
>
> Sometimes version numbers communicate the breadth of the release to
> customers, users, and programmers. By switching to a year model would we
> lose our ability to do that?
>
>
> --
> Jeffry Houser
> Technical Entrepreneur
> 203-379-0773
> --
> http://www.flextras.com?c=104
> UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
> --
> http://www.theflexshow.com
> http://www.jeffryhouser.com
> http://www.asktheflexpert.com
> --
> Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
>
