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. -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
