[Sugar-devel] Activity Versioning - Dotted Scheme

Aleksey Lim alsroot at member.fsf.org
Mon Nov 30 14:02:37 EST 2009

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>?

> My point was, that we do not have to be backwards compatible at all 
> costs (this was a general assumption).
> Thanks,
>     Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list