[sugar] Activity versioning schema
eben.eliason at gmail.com
Tue Jul 15 15:15:53 EDT 2008
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Jameson Chema Quinn <jquinn at cs.oberlin.edu>:
> > If you have a better idea of how Glucose should handle these issues,
> > share it. Simplifying assumptions are good, even if they're not 100%
> Versions in activity.info files are either plain integers, or
> RPM-standard version strings, with no pretense that these correspond
> in any way to sugar major releases or anything at all, except that
> they are ordered: if the activity updater sees that you have version
> N, and there is a version M announced[*] as compatible with your build
> where M > N, then it will suggest that you upgrade to M. All other
> meanings are encoded with other mechanisms.
How can you argue this and still argue that we can get away with integer
version numbers? According to this logic, a when brand new activity(x) for
OS(y) is released at time (t) and a bugfix activity(x+1) for OS(y-1) is
released at time (t+1), anyone on OS(y) is going to try to update to the
"newer", larger, activity(x+1) version, with none of the new features.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel