On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: > Then I plan to ignore the customization when I compute the order.
So why is it there? >> b) use the debian version numbering system *exactly*. It has been >> shown to work in the real world, and it is well documented. The >> current proposal is neither (yet). We do not need to burden the world >> with yet another ad-hoc numbering system. Please build on other >> people's work instead of re-inventing the wheel. Just because the >> debian system has features you don't *think* you need (yet) is not a >> reason to bypass it. There are great benefits to sharing a commons. >> > > I agree with not reinvent the wheel, but not with using the debian versions. > Why not the Fedora, Gentoo or OSX? > If you want, we will be using the linux kernel numbering system :) Yes, please. Using anything from the *commons* instead of inventing a new *bespoke* system is preferable. Build connected communities, not islands. > I am working with OLPC fixing Browse in sugar 0.84. The version we are using > is Browse 108, but I cant release Browse 109 because already exists. > The same problem we have, will have Dextrose or anybody who maintains a > older branch. > And "count by ten" it's not a good idea. Seems like count by ten solves the particular problem you have. It's the "simplest possible solution that could work", which is a surefire way to avoid.... > "Second system effect" [1] > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect Either solve the problem correctly, or solve it as simply as possible. The current proposal does neither, and just adds a new layer of poorly documented ad-hoc-ery. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
