When I look at the release table, it looks simple at first (if lengthy):
However, when I expand a row, it gets confusing:
In 2206.4 is the SME version 8.3.2 or 8.4.0 ?
(When I look into my local installation, I find a 8.3.2.)
Hi @stephen-warm-graph , please take a look at the documentation here: GetA12 Login . It explains the releases overview and how it is structured. Please let me know if this helps.
Thanks a lot for the feedback
Annemarie
Ah, thanks, IMHO it would be a good idea to add a link to that description to the release table itself! (Add the link to the page at GetA12 Login )
If I understand it correctly, for an expanded line:
The installer bundles the versions in bottom line (the oldest ones).
I may or may not update individual components to a newer version of the same row depending on its dependencies.
Show it may better look like this and in this example the workflow 8.0.9 is not usable with the 2022.06-ext4, because it needs a newer base version 26.2.1?
Hi @stephen-warm-graph ,
Sorry for the delayed response, I was not watching this thread properly so didn’t come across your reply until now.
First of all, you are absolutely right about adding that link for the explanation to the releases table, I will create a ticket for that. It definitely makes sense.
Also, I see exactly what you mean about the particular example that you show being confusing, it is confusing! Let me explain the issue. We use semantic versioning meaning that you can use any minor/patch versions together (as long as they meet the minimum compatible versions). The lines drawn between the ext releases are really arbitrary. There is no line there is reality, we just need a way to distinguish what is actually included in each installer. Otherwise, for developers there is no reason to take those lines into account.
In this particular case, we had a release of workflows (8.0.9) which was intended for the ext5 installer. therefore the Workflows team set the minimum compatible version of base to the one that was to be included in ext5 (26.2.1). However WF quickly released a patch to include one more bug fix for a project (8.0.10) and this then became the version that was to be included in the ext5 installer. Therefore the previous patch was bumped down below the line for ext5. This is the reason for the confusion.
In reality we could have all minor and patch versions in one big list and then developers would just need to check the min compatible versions for higher level products to know what they can use. But then we would have no overview of what is included in an installer which has been through end to end testing. Because we use semantic versioning it is assumed and advised that developers always take the latest available minor or patch version. Especially patch version because it means that bugs were fixed since the previous patch.
I totally see your point but I’m really not sure how to improve this layout so that it makes better sense for everyone. I’m really grateful for suggestions here. Either for a change or for a better means of explaining. I think that the link you suggested to the documentation will help already.
Really appreciate any feedback, thanks,
AM