On Saturday, May 02, 2015 08:47:49 AM Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: > > According to description.xml > > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Descri p > > tion_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is > > described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. > > ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata > > according to the application. > > I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string > comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version "99.0" and version > "100.0", version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a "1"). > > I use "YYYY.MM.DD" like Marco, so "2015.05.02". It is fine to use "0.1", > "0.2" and similar but "0.9" is not considered to come before "0.10" so > keep that in mind. I believe more exotic numbering like "0.9-alpha2" is > not accepted by the Extensions site, but is accepted by OpenOffice.
I see, thanks for clarifying this. My biggest concern is that the extension
manager 'catch' the published updates correctly with the extension site.
>
> It's been a few years since I last looked at this, but I don't think
> things have changed much. At the time, I settled for using "YYYY.MM.DD"
> and I've been consistently using that pattern.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Alexandro Colorado
Apache
*OpenOffice*^{TM} Contributor
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
