coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Tom Hanrahan <hanrahat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, but as they say, your mileage may vary ... :-)


From: coapp-developers-bounces+hanrahat=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+hanrahat=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Garrett Serack
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:04 AM
To: Eric Schultz
Cc: coapp-developers
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] New CO_VERSION table

It's not the years, it's the mileage.

:D

________________________________
From: Eric Schultz [wwahammy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 7:53 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers
Subject: Re: New CO_VERSION table
... There you go coming up with better ideas than me. That does make more sense :) I will do that instead.

Eric
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Why not just stick a value into the PROPERTY table; if it's just one key/value, it'll save on creating a whole new table...

G
________________________________
From: Eric Schultz [wwahammy@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:wwahammy@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:06 AM
To: Garrett Serack; coapp-developers
Subject: New CO_VERSION table
All,

I'm adding a CO_VERSION table to packages now. It will always contain one row with a column of type "string" and category "Version" called "coapp_version". This, unsurprisingly, will contain the version of CoApp that created the package. Looking forward, there's may be a point where there are enough changes between CoApp versions that newer packages might not be fully compatible with older versions. This is a surefire way to figure out which version of CoApp actually made a particular package.

Eric