On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:11 AM, bulia byak wrote:
This makes sense, but I still cannot understand why you can't have instead
case 0.47: ... case 0.48: ...
etc. Is this that you're trying to care for the users of daily builds between 0.47 and 0.48?
I believe that is what was intended. It seemed fairly straightforward from:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
- Document version changes must be atomic, because the upgrade is
conducted only one time for each type of defect. This means inkscape:document-version (or inkscape:document-format) can change several times between two releases.
This does seem to run counter to the consensus from the last time we visited this issue. Do you happen to have any new insights or opinions since then?
Oh, and yes. Among the cases I'm concerned about are those where something is removed from our extras earlier in the dev cycle and then added back before release, or where something is added or changed in an interesting way and then changed back before release. Both are among those situations where a simple case statement implementation will cause data loss.