On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 08:07 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 24/11/2012 07:46, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > For ruby19, split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it > > 11.0 or 1.10. > > Okay stop. > > There's no 1.10. > > There's 2.0 that's being developed for a long time. > > And we're not going to change our scheme just because of some > theoretical corner case that has been proven not happening in our world. > > Especially since we were the first (and not even with ruby-ng, the > syntax has been the same for years, starting with ruby16). >
Sorry, I didn't mean/intend to pick on ruby. I personally don't use it, nor do I have RUBY_TARGETS, or PHP_TARGETS set. I was just trying to point out a possible flaw in using that scheme as a common method of specifying versions in all those variables, or any future *_TARGETS type variable. ok, then please substitute "foo" for any ruby, python, php references in my previuos post... If we are going to come up with a common way of doing it, we will need to consider such a "corner case" so that we have as few exceptions to the rule as possible. Unlike the English language that I think too often has more exceptions to the rule than ones that actually follow the rule :/ It was not my intention to start yet ANOTHER -dev mail list flame war! My apologies to the list. -- Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
