openoffice-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
Date Tue, 12 May 2015 15:29:51 GMT
On 08/05/2015 Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote:
> Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain
as it is.
> I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite
uncomfortable with:
> 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme
just so they can work;
> 2- having an "overlook"/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement
the intended action.

I'm not sure we have understood messages the same way.

I'm definitely not asking anyone to adopt a YYYY.MM.DD numbering scheme, 
I'm just saying that I do so and that it works for me.

I think we all agree that any numbering scheme where alphabetical order 
is equal to numbering order (e.g., version 1.000, version 1.001, ..., 
version 1.009, version 1.010...) would work well with no surprises.

I though we had a bug with situations such as 0.9 -> 0.10; Stephan wrote 
that the bug is either not there or not as bad as I thought and I trust 
him more than my memories from years ago when I was investigating the 
issue for one extension only.

I'll post other comments to‚Äč when I have time for 
further checks, but I wanted to make the above clear before doing that.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message