> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Indicator Veritatis <mej1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Do I really have to explain something so elementary? "8" is not the
> > same as "8.0.0" is not the same as "8(.0.0)". So yes, you did make it
> > more confusing instead of less.
>
> You are seriously confused indeed.
Thanks to your own careless wording, yes. But that was and still is my
point. You are making it more confusing, not less, even now, though
this latest post of yours is a considerable improvement.
> Tools r8 will ship with ADT 8.0.0. The version that comes after will
> be Tools r9 with ADT 9.0.0, and then r10 and ADT 10.0.0, etc...
> Since both are meant to work together, it seems to me like it's a
> pretty straight forward versioning scheme.
Your wording this time does make it more clear, yes. But what remains
not at all "straight forward" is what you think to achieve by
numbering the Tools in an "r<n>" format, where n is an integer, but
numbering the things -in- the Tools with "n.0.0". What will you ever
use the other two digits for, if new versions are only released with
an entire new Tools release, which is always numbered with an integer?
Or have you simply forgotten to use the terms "minor revision number"
and "major revision number"? Did you really mean to say the the -
major- revision number of each tool will match the revision number of
the entire Tools package?
> When we release r8 we will
> clearly explain this new scheme so that users know what to expect.
That will be a welcome improvement, I am sure.
> I fail to see how it's more confusing that previous releases of r7
> with ADT 0.9.8, r6 with ADT 0.9.7, etc... where the ADT version was
> completely unrelated to the SDK tools revision number.
It is more confusing because in the earlier scheme, we knew it was
unrelated. But with the incomplete and poorly worded explanations you
gave to date of the new scheme, it was clear that there was a
relationship, but with the apparently superfluous extra digits, it was
not clear whether that relation was really meant to be identity,
forever kept in lockstep.
> > For that matter, are they sharing the same version number, or the same
> > API level? The version number is 2.2, the API level 8. Based on what
> > you have said so far, it sounds like you are using the API level as
> > the version number for the tools, which is not the same as making "all
> > tools and plug-ins share the same version number".
> What are you talking about? Tools don't have an API level, so there's
> certainly none to share between the SDK Tools and ADT, and, obviously,
> the API level for the platform has *nothing* to do with revision
> number for the tools!
No, it is not obvious that it has -nothing- to do with it. Especially
not when both happen to be '8'. That could be coincidence (as you now
confirm that it is), but without the further information you now
supply, we had no way of -knowing' that. For all we knew, you could
have decided that in the future, you would release new versions of the
Tools only with new version of the API also. That is hardly more
arbitrary than deciding that you will release new versions of any tool
only with a new version of the whole Tools package.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment