On 2013-04-17, at 02:50, "Sean P. DeNigris" <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote:
> Camillo Bruni-3 wrote >> I liked ruby-gems approach more than the one in Metacello. You usually >> specify >> a major version (as under linux) for your dependency. > > It seems they're using semantic versioning, which is *awesome*, but can we > depend on the convention being followed? I've been pushing to get the tools > (e.g. Versionner) to use semantic version numbers by default (i.e. new > bugfix version, new enhancement version, new incompatible version) Yeah I think we can run all of that on top of versioner/conventions. You can always introduce symbolic versions for releases as well so the old habit of directly referring to a fixed version number will still continue to work.
