On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:21:09PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote: > On 11/24/2009 01:42 PM, Gary C Martin wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On 24 Nov 2009, at 11:20, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> as a follow up on an older thread: > >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html > >> - we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came > >> up with these three options: > >> > >> a) The release cycle dependent one: Activities name their activity after > >> the Sugar version they are developed against. If it was released during > >> the 0.88 cycle and developed against 0.88, then it would be 0.88.x. > > Ok, I do not like that option neither. And the people that have replied, > do not neither. > > > Should we also try and resolve the Fructose issue as well here? Is Fructose > > just a random grab bag of demo activities, or is it the set of activities > > that are dependant on a single specific release of Glucose? Right now it > > contains a mix of both. I'd be against including Sugar version numbers in > > activity version number (unless perhaps they fail to work in other sugar > > releases). Activity development should be as far removed from the Glucose > > development cycle as is feasibly possible. > > > > If Fructose becomes the set of Glucose dependent activities (like Browse), > > they could be the only ones that require special versioning support > > Yes, good point. We should revisit the current activities in Fructose > and think if it makes sense to keep them in Fructose. As you said, one > point is if an activity has dependencies on the platform itself like > Browse (Hulahop).
In mind thats wrong way, some activities have non-sugar SP dependencies and can work fine with several SP releases, I guess its better to not add additioanl complexity and use only one source for compatibility info - on ASLO(moreove we have fructose activities on ASLO). BTW for 0.88 can exclude fructose from core packages at all and let deployers decide what should be included to deployments. > > I propose to go through all Fructose activities and see which one makes > sense to keep in Fructose. -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
