On Sat, 2 May 2009, Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Hugh Sasse <h...@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 May 2009, Chad Woolley wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> >> > I've cleaned out most of the easy stuff in the bug and patch queue again,
> >> > should we release a 1.3.3?
[...]
> > How do we check for version numbers? If we assume /\d\.\d\.\d/ as
> > Ruby has in the past we will run out. If we assume /\d+\.\d+\.\d+/ then
[...]
>
> irb(main):004:0> v1 = Gem::Version.new('12.230.965')
> => #<Gem::Version "12.230.965">
> irb(main):005:0> v2 = Gem::Version.new('12.230.875')
> => #<Gem::Version "12.230.875">
> irb(main):006:0> v1 > v2
> => true
> irb(main):007:0> v1 < v2
> => false
Then my remarks above can be compressed to one bit: YES. Thank you for taking
the time to dig out that info. Not had chance to explore the source lately.
Hugh_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems
Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
