On 1 Oct 2009, at 15:23, Simon Schampijer wrote: > 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.
Perhaps I'm just having a 'bad hair' day ;-) But... How do activity authors continue to support the large 0.82 (and the so far smaller 0.84, 0.86) deployments? As an activity author my primary focus is for existing deployments, making work backwards compatible. i.e. what will happen when a sugar 0.82 user downloads/shares a bundle named Labyrinth-12.0.1? I understand why this is not true for core sugar devs, or authors who have to rely on a specific component of a specific sugar build, but it almost seams like such Fructose activities are perhaps the only ones that need some complex version string matrix (like as used for the Glucose package versioning). The rest of us can just tick on with our integer releases that support all releases? I guess Fructose is in need of some discussion ;-) Regards, --Gary _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel