On 21/04/15 14:53, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:37, Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21/04/15 13:14, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
nope, solution is to explicit version to load :)
Explicit symbolic version, that is.
Never a fixed number, as that can't be patched.
That breaks the update process just as well.
no… explicit fixed number. I need version 1.0.42, not #stable or
#myCoolFantasyNumberWichAfterAllIsEqualButWorstTo-1-0-42
And of course can be patched…. with version 1.0.43.
That’s the only way to be able to make the update process work.
The explicit version number is something you record while loading and
put in a snapshot class/log. Please think through how this is supposed
to work, for all stakeholders involved.
Stephan
