[Adium-devl] GSoC 2007 student branches

[David Smith]

On May 30, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Colin Barrett wrote:

> On May 30, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Evan Schoenberg wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Michael wrote:
>>
>>>> So push 1.0.5 beta now with purple changes, and leave it in beta
>>>> until
>>>> 1.1 and then do a dual release? Sounds pretty good, but: Are there
>>>> semantics in sparkle for not upgrading someone who is on an OS  
>>>> we no
>>>> longer support? If not, we'll need to do 1.0.5 anyway to add that.
>>>> We
>>>> don't want a 10.3 user having Adium be horked because they
>>>> download 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> How did we do this for 0.89.1 -> 1.0?
>>>>
>>> Yes, a dual release. Or 1.0.5 shortly after 1.1 but only for 10.3
>>> users
>>> as the others will have skipped/moved to 1.1.
>>>
>>> I don't know about Sparkle's inner workings, I believe this will be
>>> the
>>> first time Adium hits this as -IIRC- Sparkle was introduced in 1.0
>>> (betas).
>>
>> Let's do 1.0.5 beta now in any case for sure, and see how we shape
>> up for 1.1.
>>
>> And yes, there's a mechanism for specifying a minimum system version
>> on which the release should be shown... *however* I'm not sure about
>> how sparkle handles an appcast with multiple versions available.  It
>> needs to be investigated what happens if appcast.xml has:
>>
>>  * version 1.2, minimum system requirement 10.4.0
>>  * version 1.0.6, minimum system requirement 10.3.9
>>
>> while (1) one is running 1.0.5 and (2) while one running 1.1
>
> I think these are more important test cases, really:
>
> * version 1.1.0 min sys 10.4.0
> * version 1.0.5 min sys 10.3.9
>
> While running (1) 1.0.4 and (2) 1.1bX. Although it's the same general
> idea.
>
> -Colin

Sparkle does not currently support multiple versions in one appcast;  
I started to add it, but then we came up with the beta appcast idea  
and I dropped it.

					David