On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 September 2012 16:02, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 26 September 2012 15:40, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hmm. 100 is not large enough, whereas I am already up to Turtle Blocks >>>> v160 :P >>>> But I don't know why even/odd is any less obvious than >< 100. >>>> I am not sure how to proceed. >>> >>> Maybe start using dotted numbers for the gtk3 version only? >> >> That is an interesting idea. And as long as we list the dotted number >> versions as 0.96+ then older Sugars will not look at them. So we could >> have a whole number for gtk2 (< 0.96) and dotted number for gtk3. >> Might work. But needs testing. > > As Gonzalo pointed out the problem is that latest sugar will see old > gtk2 versions of the activity as newer than dotted recent ones. I'm > getting convinced we should just use a very high version number (like > 1000.0) to avoid that. Ugly but very straightforward.
Maybe just use 100. >From release 12 to 36 it's been a little over 2 years so at that rate it's around 3 years until we reach 100 on gtk2. By then we should have most end users above 10.1.3 and those that aren't are very unlikely to be updating versions of Activities anyway so if we hit the 90s we can go to dot releases. By them I hope gtk2 stuff is dead and we're all just dealing with gtk3+ Peter _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
