[sugar] Activity versioning schema

[Greg Smith]

+1 on Gary's comments! Hysterical and spot on. Please keep them coming 
and let me know if I can help you with your project participation.

This is an important discussion about version numbers. The most 
important part will be coming to a working assumption (albeit temporary 
and subject to change) and communicating it.

Who can gather the consensus and take responsibility for updating the 
wiki if needed?

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles

Thanks,

Greg S

*****************
<gary at garycmartin.com> Subject: Re: [sugar] Activity versioning schema 
To: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> Cc: OLPC Development 
<devel at lists.laptop.org>, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com>, Sugar 
List <sugar at laptop.org> Message-ID: 
<F7C94FFF-2634-498D-9628-322B71F85CDE at garycmartin.com> Content-Type: 
text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes On 16 Jul 
2008, at 00:03, Martin Langhoff wrote:
 > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gary C Martin
 > > <gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
 >> >> Version (activity_version) is just some sortable entity to be agreed
 > >
 > > Please do read back on this - now lenghty - discussion. Unfortunately,
 > > any monotonically increasing version does _not_ work, thanks to the
 > > magic of maintenance releases. Let us bow collectively to the wisdom
 > > of distro maintainers who are smart and have been doing this job for
 > > far longer than us.
 > >
 > > In other words, let us do the same thing that rpm and dpkg do.
 > >
 > > It gives you both more expressive power, and a stupid "1.1.0.9z is
 > > older than 2.0-alpha" cmp function for whenever you need it.

OK, sorry, I've clearly accidentally wandered in to a room full of
hardcore gun toting bit heads ? I'm now backing slowly towards the
exit, my hands clearly raised. Please do be sure to post whatever (I'm
sure excellent) final outcome is, clearly and somewhere public
(perhaps http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles *** would be a
start), so us external activity developers don't have to be part of
this bit punk talk.

*** Salient quotes: "Each activity.info file must have a
"activity_version" key. The version is a single positive integer.
Larger versions are considered "newer". The value assigned to this key
should be considered opaque to the activity; the only requirement of
the activity is that it must be larger for new activity builds." And:
"Each activity.info file must have a "host_version" key. The version
is a single positive integer. This specifies the version of the Sugar
environment which the activity is compatible with. (fixme: need to
specify sugar versions somewhere. Obviously we start with 1.)" ****

**** if this is incorrect, please, PLEASE (!!) remove it from the f$#
%ing bit rot wiki!

--Gary