[Sugar-devel] Activity Versioning - Dotted Scheme

[Aleksey Lim]

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
> >> - we want to get the versioning sorted in 0.88 for real. So far we came
> >> up with these three options:
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> Ok, I do not like that option neither. And the people that have replied, 
> do not neither.
> 
> > Should we also try and resolve the Fructose issue as well here? Is Fructose just a random grab bag of demo activities, or is it the set of activities that are dependant on a single specific release of Glucose? Right now it contains a mix of both. I'd be against including Sugar version numbers in activity version number (unless perhaps they fail to work in other sugar releases). Activity development should be as far removed from the Glucose development cycle as is feasibly possible.
> >
> > If Fructose becomes the set of Glucose dependent activities (like Browse), they could be the only ones that require special versioning support
> 
> Yes, good point. We should revisit the current activities in Fructose 
> and think if it makes sense to keep them in Fructose. As you said, one 
> point is if an activity has dependencies on the platform itself like 
> Browse (Hulahop).

In mind thats wrong way, some activities have non-sugar SP dependencies
and can work fine with several SP releases, I guess its better to not add
additioanl complexity and use only one source for compatibility info -
on ASLO(moreove we have fructose activities on ASLO).

BTW for 0.88 can exclude fructose from core packages at all and let
deployers decide what should be included to deployments.
> 
> I propose to go through all Fructose activities and see which one makes 
> sense to keep in Fructose.

-- 
Aleksey