[Sugar-devel] Activity Versioning - Dotted Scheme
simon at schampijer.de
Tue Nov 24 08:23:56 EST 2009
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 good idea that activities are developed against
> a specific version of Sugar. For example, right now in Uruguay we have
> 400.000 laptops with version 0.82. Updating to a new version is a very
> complex logistic problem. (Besides, as far as I know there is no XO
> image ready with a newer version of Sugar yet.)
> Legacy support can be painful but I think it is necessary. My wish is
> that as a rule all activities should be compatible with previous
> versions of Sugar and the Sugar API should try to remain as stable as
Of course, it makes sense to minimize dependencies wherever possible,
and the API should try to stay as much stable as possible. Though
changes like the new toolbar design must happen at some points. And of
course having a lot of glue code is costly, too.
For the versioning, I like the mayor-minor scheme best. Is easily added
and people can keep the integer versioning if they like.
More information about the Sugar-devel