On 1/15/07, Chad Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Nope, and I doubt that there ever will be. Everybody does versioning differently, so all a person can ever really do is look at the project information and then judge the version number in the context of the other project information. And given that, the gems versioning support is a compromise position that provides some flexibility in choosing how to assign version numbers while still providing a useful capability to select specific versions or ranges of versions. I'd welcome even more capability in that regard, personally, but it's hardly a show stopper. After all, is a version like 1.0-rc9 really any more informative than 0.3.13.4? Kirk Haines _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
