[Sugar-devel] Proposal of dotted activity version number

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:
> Then I plan to ignore the customization when I  compute the order.

So why is it there?

>> b) use the debian version numbering system *exactly*.  It has been
>> shown to work in the real world, and it is well documented.  The
>> current proposal is neither (yet).  We do not need to burden the world
>> with yet another ad-hoc numbering system.  Please build on other
>> people's work instead of re-inventing the wheel.  Just because the
>> debian system has features you don't *think* you need (yet) is not a
>> reason to bypass it.  There are great benefits to sharing a commons.
>>
>
> I agree with not reinvent the wheel, but not with using the debian versions.
> Why not the Fedora, Gentoo or OSX?
> If you want, we will be using the linux kernel numbering system :)

Yes, please.  Using anything from the *commons* instead of inventing a
new *bespoke* system is preferable.  Build connected communities, not
islands.

> I am working with OLPC fixing Browse in sugar 0.84. The version we are using
> is Browse 108, but I cant release Browse 109 because already exists.
> The same problem we have, will have Dextrose or anybody who maintains a
> older branch.
> And "count by ten" it's not a good idea.

Seems like count by ten solves the particular problem you have.  It's
the "simplest possible solution that could work", which is a surefire
way to avoid....

> "Second system effect" [1]
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

Either solve the problem correctly, or solve it as simply as possible.
 The current proposal does neither, and just adds a new layer of
poorly documented ad-hoc-ery.
  --scott

-- 
                         ( http://cscott.net/ )