[Sugar-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Sucrose 0.86 Branching - Activity versions

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Wade Brainerd <wadetb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> *Activity versions*
>> As we use integers for activity versions (this really has to change for
>> 0.88 with introducing minor versions), we need to cope for the famous:
>> stable/unstable version issue. I would say to leave at least 3 version
>> numbers open when doing a new unstable release. An example:
>>
>> Walter has submitted TurtleArt 69 for 0.86. He reserves the numbers 70,
>> 71, 72 for bug fix releases. When he is doing a release from the
>> unstable master branch (0.88 development) he is using numbers > 72.
>
> I'm still against this plan.  Does anyone else feel like the integer numbers
> are a good thing?
> We have been striving to keep activity releases backwards compatible as far
> as possible; there should be no need to branch activities for sucrose
> releases.  If a bug is found, sucrose can be updated to the latest version.

I agree. why not have 69 as the primary release and fixes against it
for the branch as 69.1 69.2 etc. Or if its meant for a particular
version of sugar and not meant to be compatible with earlier versions
use the same release as the release of sugar. It would at least be
easy to work out that version 86.x is needed for sugar 0.86.x as 69
has no relationship what so ever.

Peter