On 1/15/07, Kirk Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/15/07, Chad Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'll point this thread out to the RubyGems list, I'm curious what they > > would have to say. At a minimum, I think the RubyGems versioning > > standard docs could use some clarification. > > I imagine that what is said will reduce down to something like this: > "Provide a patch that retains the ability to selectively require > certain versions or version ranges, yet provides the version > specification freedom that you think should exist, and we'll consider > it."
You are probably right. However, the RubyGems "Rational Versioning Policy" ( http://rubygems.org/read/chapter/7 ) doesn't seem to account for the beta/release candidate phase of the development cycle for a post-1.0 release. It looks like the best you can do is to assume that any x.0.0 release is a release candidate, and should be treated as such. However, there's still no standard way for a gem developer to indicate that a given post-x.0.0 version is now REALLY finished, and should be safe for widespread use. -- Chad _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
