On 1/15/07, Chad Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > There's an interesting thread on the Mongrel Users list, where a > Debian package manager is asking questions about RubyGem's versioning > standards. > > Here's my last post which I think summarizes most of it: > > http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2007-January/002694.html > > Basically, the question is - how do you specify a release candidate > version for a version that is post 1.0? Specifically, if people are > automatically pulling all the latest version of a gem (">= 1.0.0"), > how can they say "I ONLY want stable releases, not alpha versions or > release candidates"? Does RubyGems support any version numbering (or > version specifications) other than the "[(in)equality operator] > x[.y.z]" pattern, where x, y, and z are numeric? If not, is this an > unnecessary limitation? What are workarounds?
I've wondered about this too. One idea that occured to me was to prefix a "0." to the version. Eg. 0.1.2.1 is a work in progress release for 1.2. (Obvioulsy this means not using 0.x releases for anything else.) It's a workable solution, but I've never bothered myself. I figure "fixed" versions are a bit overrated anyway. By the time many people are aware of 1.2 your on to 1.2.1. So in a sense every release is a release candiate for the next version. T. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
