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

[Michael Stone]

Wade 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?

Insofar as I think that version numbers are a good thing, I think that integer
version numbers are just fine. I'm just surprised that people are so timid
about using larger integers. 

(That being said, lexicographically-ordered major-minor-patch tuples would work
just as well (or as badly) for me as ordered integers because they reflect just
as little of the actual history of its authorship, its test status, its
stability, its platform-compatibility, and its bit-for-bit identity (as is
needed for cryptographic operations).)

>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.

Perhaps you meant that the activity can be updated to the latest version?

Regards,

Michael