On 07.01.2011, at 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote: >> On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote: > >> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this means >> that not all clients can talk to all servers. > > which actually isn't relevant in this case.
why? You suggest to extend an open standard with a custom parameter so that it only work with your server. This kills the standard. I think this can and should be avoided. > >> And I don´t really understand why because it is absolutely no problem to >> work together with the other server and client developers and put it into >> the official spec. > > it isn't a problem. i just don't want to waste anyone's time (including my > own) working through a standardization process for something which we don't > know how well it will work in practice. Thats sad to hear. I´m a big fan of standard. >>> the lack of a well-defined version # scheme is moderately troubling, but >>> i'm trying hard to ignore that as a source of possible edge cases ;) >> >> Perhaps it´s not complete clear in the spec but there is in fact a system. >> We discussed this with the MeeGo and Midgard guys during academy. A higher >> number in the version field means a newer number which is than offered to >> the user as an update. The version field don´t has to be the real version >> string like "KDE 4.6 RC2 patch 17" it can a random number. It just has to > > this is precisely the issue: it isn't well defined so it can be "4.6 RC2 > patch > 17". amarok's got a cute little "version number parser" that assumes an > "x.y.z" style approach. this really ought to be specified in detail in the > spec so that systems can be reliably built around it. Well. It is defined but not good documented. But this is easily fixable :-) >> be increased to push a new version to the users. This is how it work in >> the new MeeGo Installer for example. Cou could just use the git revision >> number in the version field and your done. > > git uses commit hashes, not revision #s, so i'm not sure if this would work > to > well in the case of git. Yes. You are right. -- Frank Karlitschek karlitsc...@kde.org _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
