On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 01:42, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@member.fsf.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 04:38:56PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> On 30.11.2009, at 21:24, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> > >> > On 30.11.2009, at 20:02, Aleksey Lim wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 07:49:15PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> >>> On 11/30/2009 10:00 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> >>>> On 29.11.2009, at 20:50, Simon Schampijer wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Well, if an activity will work for an older release is not only >> >>>>> determined by the activity version number. For example, activities that >> >>>>> moved to the new toolbar design are not working for older releases< >> >>>>> 0.86. I don't think we can always avoid breaking backwards >> >>>>> compatibility. >> >>>> >> >>>> But so far we have managed to make is at least *possible* for an >> >>>> activity author to have a single activity version run under all Sugar >> >>>> versions. This would be the first instance where the author would not >> >>>> have that chance. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm pretty sure we can find a scheme that both allows a single activity >> >>>> bundle to provide dotted version numbers for new Sugar, but keep >> >>>> working in old Sugar. >> >>>> >> >>>> E.g., we do not have to re-use the "activity_version" field if that >> >>>> breaks the parsing in older versions. It could be a new field named >> >>>> "dotted_activity_version" or simply "version" or something else. An >> >>>> activity author who cared could then provide both, a decimal and a >> >>>> dotted activity version. >> >>>> >> >>>> - Bert - >> >>> >> >>> Sorry, for the mixup. Yes we could add a way for the dotted version >> >>> number, and your idea sounds good. How does Bert's idea from above >> >>> sounds to others? >> >> >> >> +1, but maybe use "activity_release"(or so) instead of >> >> "dotted_activity_version", >> >> the full version in 0.88+ will be <activity_version>.<activity_release>? >> > >> > That would link the old and new version field - I thought of them as being >> > independent. Basically, the old activity_version field would be a like a >> > build number, increasing for every build, as we did before. It would be >> > optional in Sugar 0.88. The "real" user-visible version number would be >> > the dotted one in a different field. >> > >> > An activity author who wants to support both could keep incrementing >> > activity_version, and assign dotted version numbers independently. >> > >> > - Bert - >> >> Thinking about this, for Etoys it doesn't really make a difference. We can >> as well switch to the dotted-only scheme. >> >> So unless other activity authors feel backwards compatibility is needed, >> just use whatever is simplest. >> >> Is this already written up as a feature? Couldn't find it. > > I've created > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Dotted_Activity_Versions > and wrote several options of your proposal(how I understood it) > in > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Dotted_Activity_Versions#Detailed_Description > > Also I pushed it to "Feature Ready for Release Manager" group though > this feature doesn't meet all requirements(there is no owner, I guess it > will be trivial to code it) but it let us do not forget about this > feature.
Thanks a lot for entering the feature page. Do we have any consensus on which alternative is best? Regards, Tomeu -- «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David Farning _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel