On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM,
<csrabak@bol.com.br> wrote:
Em 10/01/2010 13:04, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com > escreveu:
[snipped]
> �>
> �>> and you �can change the suffix �as well, but �personally i would
> �>> not use the date in the image name.
> �>>
> �> For �the date �you refer �to year, �month and �number �of version
> �> inside the month ?
>
> �yes I think it is too complicated a version scheme. The dev tag is
> �also synonymous with Pharo.
> � so if your Pharo image is currently Pharo1.0-10505-rc1dev10.01.1 I
> �would call it Pharo-1.0-10505-rc1. This is the same scheme that the
> �core image �uses, and �Pharo 1.1 will �have this �behaviour already
> �using #imageVersionString since it is in 1.1.
>
>
> �That's cool. I evaluate:
> �SystemVersion current version: 'Pharo-1.0-10505-rc1'
> �And seems �to be almost what I �want. �It would be �cool (maybe not
> for 1.0, but for �1.1) if we can see not only �the version of Pharo,
> but also opf the pharoCore...So, SystemVersion could understand:
> � coreVersion: and version:
> �Then in System -> About, if I am in a core image I would see:
>
> �PharoCore1.0rc1
> �Latest update: #10505
OK.
> �And if I am in Pharo I would see
> �Pharo1.0-10505-rc1dev10.01.1
Isn't this �^^^^^ completely redundant with:
> �PharoCore1.0rc1
> �Latest update: #10505 <<<<<<<<<--- this?
the problem is what I have already said. If the user did a system update, the core will be higher that the dev image, and not the same.
Maybe we can just don't care about this case or disable the system update in dev as we are discussing in another thread.
�
--
Cesar Rabak