On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > > On 1/22/12 7:11 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <m...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > > > Does anyone have any idea why Alex suggested years? Was there a reason? > > > > I am in agreement as well with what Omar stated, just curious why Alex > > would deviate from what most developers were expecting. > Because Omar wants to somehow reserve version numbers that Adobe will use. > I do not want to fight that battle right now, if ever. > Well I wasn't trying to suggest that we would negotiate, or have Adobe try to reserve certain version numbers. I was just saying let's not use any version numbers ourselves in the 4.6.x space. That would be under the assumption that when Adobe stated that 4.6 would be their final release that they truly meant it, and I don't think we have any reason to think they didn't. So in the case they did decide that had to fix some crucial bug I would naturally expect them to name the release 4.6.1, or 4.6.2 or something along those lines. However, if Adobe did decide for some reason that they would release a 4.7, then there are a few things to point out here. 1.) It would be named Adobe Flex 4.7. 2.) If they're donating the name for us to use, and Apache will only accept the name if its under full control of Apache, then I wouldn't worry about Adobe releasing a version of the SDK named Adobe Flex XX.XX.XX, right? Maybe I'm opening a whole new can of worms we shouldn't even think about at this point? > > So I'd recommend a significant jump in version numbers to get some > separation and reduce confusion. > I think it is also a gamble to have two branches and call one of them 5. I > would think if we do enough adds of new components to 4.x without a major > architecture it could still warrant a 5. That's what we were going to do > at > Adobe. > Well here I wasn't necessarily saying we had to or should have a branch named 5, I was just saying that if we got to a point where we decided to completely change the Spark architecture, or added significant API breaking or new changes that we could then consider that as a release that could be named Apache Flex 5. I think for the immediate future we need to have our eyes set on Apache Flex 4.7.0, or whatever ends up being the first number we use for the first release. > > I agree with all the negatives of using years though. I'm not sure there > is > a great solution. Seems like our choices are: > > Use 4.7 and gamble on Adobe future release version names. > Use years. > Use a big version jump 10? 100? 1000? > > So to be clear, if you want to see Omar's proposal, remove the clause about > having Adobe reserve names and replace it with a gamble that they will. > And if that's good enough for the majority of you, then that's what we'll do. > I'm fine with gambling on Adobe's version future. I really don't see > anything significant coming out of Adobe related to Flex. > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > > Yea that's kind of what I meant. I don't really want to add any more dependencies on Adobe at all in any manner. It's just kind of like saying, well Adobe _might_ release a 4.6.1 for X reason so lets skip those numbers and go to the next being 4.7. We could also decide that the "big version jump" is just moving to 5, and saying Apache Flex 5 is our first release. We can make it even more clear by making a simple graphic, once we have the vote on the logo finalized, showing up to which version Adobe was at the helm, and where it became an Apache project. -omar
