"Berger, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd rather not get into mangling version numbers in an attempt to parse > every arcane schema that users come up with in the wild.
Indeed; that would be foolhardy. However, we don't try to handle every arcane schema. We handle this: * Parts of versions with only numerical digits are treated as before. * Version parts with letters are prerelease (e.g. 'a', 'b5', or 'RC1'). * Versions with a prerelease part in the Nth part sort less than versions with N-1 parts. * Prerelease parts are sorted alphabetically using the normal Ruby string sorting rules. The code to do so is very simple and well-tested. > However, I'm not opposed in principle to the notion of a gem "status" > that would more or less be in line with the "status" field for RAA > downloads [...] > Seem reasonable? It would seem reasonable if you had proposed it before any code had been written, but it doesn't seem reasonable to throw away what we already have since we get the same benefits without adding a new field to the gemspec. I've just committed what I have. If you have any concrete objections I would be happy to attend to them, but everyone else I've talked to has been very glad to see this feature introduced. There is a little more logic to be added to the SpecFetcher about when to ignore prereleases, but other than that it should be ready. -Phil _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
