[Sugar-devel] Activities not compatible with Sugar-0.90

[Bernie Innocenti]

On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:32 +0000, Daniel Drake wrote:

> If I use a collection, the versions are fixed to the exact versions
> that I add to the collection, whereas (see last mail) I want the
> latest activity version compatible with Sugar-0.90.
> (please correct me if I've misunderstood what a collection is)

The latest activity compatible with Sugar-X.Y is what the RDF protocol
provided.

This wasn't considered good for deployments enough because it doesn't
allow the pedagogical team to do any QA on updates before they hit the
users.

So the idea is that Dextrose could create a collection "dextrose2" which
pins certain activity versions. Paraguay could create a collection
"dextrose2-py" and pin slightly different activities.

The downside of this approach is that development builds no longer get
the latest and greatest activities automatically. Is this what is
bothering you? Perhaps we could add separate microformat URLs that
filter by Sugar version.

In my mind, letting the activity owner self-certify which versions of
Sugar are known to work well is poor QA practice. I'd rather have
someone responsible to do some testing upfront before blessing them for
the "sugar-0.90" collection.

Moreover, the version range currently supported by ASLO is a little too
simplistic for the variety of ABIs that we're going to see soon:
f14-s0.90-i386, f15-s0.92-arm... maybe even crazier. With multiple
architectures, the dream of a simple & universal bundle format for
activity is over and our package management tools are still very
immature.

-- 
   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
 \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/