[Owncloud] Improvement for the required version test blocking apps

[Michael Gapczynski]

Hi Christian,

Instead of ownCloud versions, I believe we need to start setting versions for 
the public API and use those for determining what apps work. In any case this 
is something that we should work on before the hard feature freeze.

Since no version for the public API has been set before, should we just start 
at v1?


Michael

On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:33:39 PM Christian Reiner wrote:
> Hello all,
> I would like to suggest an improvement:
> 
> Aparently a few days ago the test blocking apps according to the OC version
> they specify as requirement got sharpened again in OC-git a few days ago.
> 
> Obviously this means that all 4rd party apps are broken now again until
> updated in this aspect. However we all know this is a problem, since the app
> developers have to choose between two bad options:
> - break the app for current stable and all installations for weeks or
> - leave the app unmaintained until OC5 is declared stable and rolled out
> I think we all agree this is a really bad situation.
> 
> Now I don't want to rant about anything, I do see the point why the test was
> introduced. However in its current version this test is questionable. It
> throws up more problems than it solves in my eyes. It celarly frustrates
> app developers and users.
> 
> I want to suggest a better solution for this test:
> the format of the info.xml file should be extended in future. The 'requires'
> tag should be kept, it servers as a good protection against breaking
> outdated installations. I suggest to introduce an additional but optional
> tag 'compatible' that accepts multiple entries, one for each version the
> app actually is compatible with. This way the app can be used in newer
> versions, but only if that has been explicitly specified as possible. So
> outdated apps won't break newer installations.
> 
> I hesitate to suggest to make that new tag too complex. Testing against sub
> versions sounds attempting and certainly is possible from a technical point
> of view. Nevertheless I woud prefer to keep things simple, so limited to
> major versions. The tag could be declared optional, so that backwards
> compatibility is maintained.
> 
> Any comments or suggestions?
> Did I miss anything ? Is this more complex than it appears?