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....@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:t...@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 > > > > > >
