[Mongrel] The Debian Plan - reloaded

Chad Woolley thewoolleyman at gmail.com
Mon Jan 15 20:42:47 EST 2007

On 1/15/07, Kirk Haines <wyhaines at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Nope, and I doubt that there ever will be.  Everybody does versioning
> differently, so all a person can ever really do is look at the project
> information and then judge the version number in the context of the
> other project information.

Here's the answer I got on the RubyGems developer list:


"The typical workaround is to not post release-candidate gems to
Rubyforge, and
instead host them on a separate gem server."

A reasonable answer, especially since it's so easy to set up a local
gem server, and point to that on your RubyForge project page (or even
host the gem files directly on your RubyForge account).

-- Chad

More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list