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

[Simon Schampijer]

On 10/01/2009 05:44 PM, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2009, at 15:23, Simon Schampijer wrote:
>
>> On 10/01/2009 03:55 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This still seems pretty limiting. What if he finds he actually needs 4
>>> bugfix releases? Why should replace a limited system with another
>>> that's just as limiting (This suggestion is kind of like going from
>>> O(0) to O(3), instead of O(n) like we really need).
>>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, this is just a workaround for 0.86 - as we would need
>> some changes to support the dotted version numbers. For 0.88 we can do
>> the dotted versions.
>
>
> Perhaps I'm just having a 'bad hair' day ;-) But...
>
> How do activity authors continue to support the large 0.82 (and the so
> far smaller 0.84, 0.86) deployments? As an activity author my primary
> focus is for existing deployments, making work backwards compatible.
> i.e. what will happen when a sugar 0.82 user downloads/shares a bundle
> named Labyrinth-12.0.1? I understand why this is not true for core sugar
> devs, or authors who have to rely on a specific component of a specific
> sugar build, but it almost seams like such Fructose activities are
> perhaps the only ones that need some complex version string matrix (like
> as used for the Glucose package versioning). The rest of us can just
> tick on with our integer releases that support all releases?

Yes, there is more f a need for sucrose activities to switch to the 
dotted scheme.

> I guess Fructose is in need of some discussion ;-)
>
> Regards,
> --Gary

Indeed, I just left it to the time after 0.86 is out.

Regards,
    Simon