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
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
Am 14.12.2009 um 16:26 schrieb Aleksey Lim:
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 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
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
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
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
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,
Aleksey Lim wrote:
+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?
The standard term is minor version number, so minor_version seems
appropriate.
--Ben
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
A problem with introducing dotted version numbers is that Sugar
versions 0.82-0.86 parse the activity version field using the Python
int() function.
a = int('100.3')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '100.3'
If
On 11/29/2009 07:23 PM, Wade Brainerd wrote:
A problem with introducing dotted version numbers is that Sugar
versions 0.82-0.86 parse the activity version field using the Python
int() function.
a = int('100.3')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, inmodule
ValueError:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:23:22PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
Anecdote: My XO ran out of space over Thanksgiving and automatically
deleted Browse at boot time. I downloaded the latest version, but it
failed to launch as my XO is running the OLPC 8.2.0 build. This was
pretty annoying to me
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:23:22PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
Anecdote: My XO ran out of space over Thanksgiving and automatically
deleted Browse at boot time. I downloaded the latest version, but it failed
to launch as
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 03:38:26PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:23:22PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
Anecdote: My XO ran out of space over Thanksgiving and automatically
deleted Browse at boot
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 03:38:26PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:23:22PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
Anecdote: My XO ran out
Hi Simon,
On 24 Nov 2009, at 11:20, Simon Schampijer wrote:
Hi,
as a follow up on an older thread:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html
- we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came
up with these three options:
a) The
Hi Simon,
a) The release cycle dependent one: Activities name their activity after
the Sugar version they are developed against. If it was released during
the 0.88 cycle and developed against 0.88, then it would be 0.88.x.
I don't think it is a good idea that activities are developed against
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote:
Hi,
as a follow up on an older thread:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html
- we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came
up with these three options:
a) The
On 11/24/2009 01:42 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 24 Nov 2009, at 11:20, Simon Schampijer wrote:
Hi,
as a follow up on an older thread:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html
- we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came
On 11/24/2009 02:00 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
Hi Simon,
a) The release cycle dependent one: Activities name their activity after
the Sugar version they are developed against. If it was released during
the 0.88 cycle and developed against 0.88, then it would be 0.88.x.
I don't think it is a
On 11/24/2009 02:12 PM, Aleksey Lim wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote:
Hi,
as a follow up on an older thread:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html
- we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:21:09PM +0100, Simon Schampijer wrote:
On 11/24/2009 01:42 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 24 Nov 2009, at 11:20, Simon Schampijer wrote:
Hi,
as a follow up on an older thread:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2009-October/019939.html
23 matches
Mail list logo
