Chad Woolley dijo [Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:15:33PM -0700]: > > 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.
Would not make too much sense, still - What one author considers to be 1.0-ready will still be 0.1-like for another author's standards. No, the only thing worth requesting is IMHO to keep sanity - Debian introduced the useful-but-for-me-still-worth-avoiding ~ syntax, made to accomodate some upstream strange practices - The ~ character sorts version-wise just before the exact version number preceding it. So you have: 0.99 < 1.0~beta1 < 1.0~beta3 < 1.0~beta3~almost < 1.0 Greetings :) -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
