On 1/15/07, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's an interesting thread on the Mongrel Users
list, where a
> Debian package manager is asking questions about
RubyGem's versioning
> standards.
>
> Here's my last post which I think summarizes most of
it:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-user
s/2007-January/002694.html
>
> Basically, the question is - how do you specify a
release candidate
> version for a version that is post 1.0? Specifically,
if people are
> automatically pulling all the latest version of a gem
(">= 1.0.0"),
> how can they say "I ONLY want stable releases, not
alpha versions or
> release candidates"? Does RubyGems support any
version numbering (or
> version specifications) other than the
"[(in)equality operator]
> x[.y.z]" pattern, where x, y, and z are numeric?
If not, is this an
> unnecessary limitation? What are workarounds?
I've wondered about this too. One idea that occured to me
was to
prefix a "0." to the version. Eg. 0.1.2.1 is a
work in progress
release for 1.2. (Obvioulsy this means not using 0.x
releases for
anything else.)
It's a workable solution, but I've never bothered myself. I
figure
"fixed" versions are a bit overrated anyway. By
the time many people
are aware of 1.2 your on to 1.2.1. So in a sense every
release is a
release candiate for the next version.
T.
_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
Rubygems-developersrubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-develope
rs
|