[Sugar-devel] Activity Versioning - Dotted Scheme

[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 <alsroot at 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 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.
> 
> Thanks a lot for entering the feature page. Do we have any consensus
> on which alternative is best?

I'm personally for 2nd option of
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Dotted_Activity_Versions#Detailed_Description

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tomeu
> 
> -- 
> «Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar.
> What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David
> Farning
> 

-- 
Aleksey