On 10/01/2009 03:55 PM, Eben Eliason wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Peter Robinson<pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Wade Brainerd<wad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Simon Schampijer<si...@schampijer.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> *Activity versions* >>>> As we use integers for activity versions (this really has to change for >>>> 0.88 with introducing minor versions), we need to cope for the famous: >>>> stable/unstable version issue. I would say to leave at least 3 version >>>> numbers open when doing a new unstable release. An example: >>>> >>>> Walter has submitted TurtleArt 69 for 0.86. He reserves the numbers 70, >>>> 71, 72 for bug fix releases. When he is doing a release from the >>>> unstable master branch (0.88 development) he is using numbers> 72. > > This still seems pretty limiting. What if he finds he actually needs 4 > bugfix releases? Why should replace a limited system with another > that's just as limiting (This suggestion is kind of like going from > O(0) to O(3), instead of O(n) like we really need). >
Just to be clear, this is just a workaround for 0.86 - as we would need some changes to support the dotted version numbers. For 0.88 we can do the dotted versions. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel