On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:23:47PM -0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > 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?
I'm personally for 2nd option of http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Dotted_Activity_Versions#Detailed_Description > > Regards, > > Tomeu > > -- > «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar. > What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David > Farning > -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
