After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 639255 - Introduce versioning in the extension system
Introduce versioning in the extension system
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-shell
Classification: Core
Component: extensions
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-shell-maint
gnome-shell-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-01-11 21:45 UTC by Giovanni Campagna
Modified: 2011-01-12 21:07 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Propagate version to Javascript files (2.77 KB, patch)
2011-01-11 21:46 UTC, Giovanni Campagna 		committed Details | Review
ExtensionSystem: introduce versioning (3.99 KB, patch)
2011-01-11 21:46 UTC, Giovanni Campagna 		committed Details | Review

Description Giovanni Campagna 2011-01-11 21:45:41 UTC 
As discussed on the mailing list, since the API is not stable we need extensions to declare which version of the shell they support.
Comment 1 Giovanni Campagna 2011-01-11 21:46:17 UTC 
Created attachment 178091 [details] [review]
Propagate version to Javascript files

Add an entry in config.js.in for PACKAGE_VERSION and GJS_VERSION,
to be used by the notification daemon and in the future by the
extension system.
Comment 2 Giovanni Campagna 2011-01-11 21:46:26 UTC 
Created attachment 178092 [details] [review]
ExtensionSystem: introduce versioning

Require that all extensions have a "shell-version" property in their
metadata, which is an array of supported Shell versions.
Extensions can target a specific version triple or an entire stable
version.
Optionally, they can also require a specific GJS version, to ensure
compatibility.
Comment 3 Colin Walters 2011-01-12 17:53:10 UTC 
Review of attachment 178091 [details] [review]:

Looks good!
Comment 4 Colin Walters 2011-01-12 17:57:39 UTC 
Review of attachment 178092 [details] [review]:

Looks good in general.  Why the micro version if we don't use it?
Comment 5 Giovanni Campagna 2011-01-12 19:21:50 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> Review of attachment 178092 [details] [review]:
> 
> Looks good in general.  Why the micro version if we don't use it?

I've seen micro versions in other packages in the past, I don't want to break extensions because someone made a mistake in releasing, or because of a small crasher (small in the sense of the fix needed).
Comment 6 Giovanni Campagna 2011-01-12 21:07:20 UTC 
Fixed now, thanks!