Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-20 Thread Gonzalo Odiard
OLPC image 10.1.3 had dotted versions backported. Check http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Release_notes/10.1.3#sugar_2 and http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10379 Gonzalo On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-20 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> Even so, how do we get the patch into the field? > > My suspicion is that it is already deployed in the 0.84 releases that > went into the field - but someone will have to check, bec

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-20 Thread Daniel Drake
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Walter Bender wrote: > Even so, how do we get the patch into the field? My suspicion is that it is already deployed in the 0.84 releases that went into the field - but someone will have to check, because I might be talking nonsense. Daniel ___

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-20 Thread Walter Bender
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Walter Bender > wrote: >> Peru is slowing moving to 11.3 (Sugar 0.94) but there are many 0.84 >> machines in the field. > > Dotted activity versions may have been backported to 0.84. Can anyone > double check

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-20 Thread Daniel Drake
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > Peru is slowing moving to 11.3 (Sugar 0.94) but there are many 0.84 > machines in the field. Dotted activity versions may have been backported to 0.84. Can anyone double check? Daniel ___ Sugar-de

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-18 Thread Walter Bender
Peru is slowing moving to 11.3 (Sugar 0.94) but there are many 0.84 machines in the field. -walter On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote: > >> We should not be using dotted version numbers for activities intended to >> be installed at deployments running builds older th

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-18 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
> We should not be using dotted version numbers for activities intended to be > installed at deployments running builds older than Sugar 0.92.0. In Uruguay, one week ago, the latest image was Sugar 0.88 !Now (by luck) we have Sugar 0.94 :-) In others deployments, what Sugar version are their us

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-18 Thread Gary Martin
Hi folks, On 19 Jul 2012, at 00:06, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote: > > Works. The problem is the dot in the activity version. > Maybe all xx.x activities must will updated to xx+1 For what it's worth: Digging through git commits, dotted version number support was added by commit c7a80a (Novem

Re: [Sugar-devel] [ASLO] Problem with number of version

2012-07-18 Thread S. Daniel Francis
2012/7/18 Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn : > > Works. The problem is the dot in the activity version. > Maybe all xx.x activities must will updated to xx+1 > > Regards! > > Alan > The better in this case would be: xx+1(same as gtk3 version) in the activity.info and xx.x in ASLO. But I suppose it woul