[Adium-devl] GSoC 2007 student branches
timber at lava.net
Wed May 30 21:51:19 UTC 2007
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
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> as the others will have skipped/moved to 1.1.
>> I don't know about Sparkle's inner workings, I believe this will be
>> first time Adium hits this as -IIRC- Sparkle was introduced in 1.0
> 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
More information about the Adium-devl