On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's true, however I think it's also been agreed that we need > support for, at a minimum, major and minor version numbers for > activities. We should probably make some final decisions on that and > make sure that any software that depends on integers is prepared to > consider anything of version X without a minor version specified to be > X.0 for forward compatibility.
Ping -- where can I find more information on activity numbering? I chose 0.1-1.0-x.x style numbering because it reflects 1.0 being when I believe the activity is ready for deployment. I hope this intended meaning is preserved in any suggested version numbering standards. Things that might be nice to also include on any activity numbering scheme: - 1.0 is special - when to hold the release party - testedness / ready-for-classroom? - major / minor changes Brian > > - Eben > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please remember that activity version numbers must be integers. Software >> does exist which relies on this assumption! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar >> > _______________________________________________ Library mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/library
