[Sugar-devel] Proposal of dotted activity version number

Simon Schampijer simon at schampijer.de
Mon Oct 4 10:57:54 EDT 2010

On 10/04/2010 04:48 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Gonzalo Odiard<gonzalo at laptop.org>  wrote:
>> The current activity version scheme does only allow the use of integer
>> numbers.
>> This has the issue that doing a bug fix release for an older activity
>> version gets rather complicated. People have been planning for that in
>> advance and reserved numbers for such a purpose in order to overcome that
>> short coming.
> How often is it the case that we wouldn't just want the latest version
> of an activity to replace a bug-laden older version?

There are cases where this is not possible. Take Browse as an example. 
Browse is highly tight to the underlying Sucrose version, hence Browse 
from 0.90 won't run on 0.84.

If one has released Browse version 108 for Sucrose 0.84 and 109 for 0.86 
one is in deep trouble if one wants to fix a bug in 0.84. So this is one 
use case where the extended scheme makes sense.

I think it is much more flexible in general, and the good part is that 
people can still keep on using the integer version number.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list