[Rubygems-developers] Another plug for Simon's patch

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 1 21:14:44 EST 2004

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:33:42AM -0800, David A. Black wrote:
> > '1.*' is nice but it *still requires* a versioning policy.
> > Imagine devel. A packages a gem with a dependency on 'foo', "1.*', at
> > the time 1.0 is out. The developer of foo releases a newer,
> > incompatible version 1.1. He's defeated the attempts of A to isolate
> > his gem from changes in foo's API.
> The same thing is true if > 1.0.5 means < 2.0.  It still doesn't mean

I wasn't objecting to the 1.* notation itself (I rather like it),
just pointed out that no notation can really working unless you have a
policy behind...

> < 1.1.  I think trying to impose a versioning policy, in the sense of
> telling people which digits have to flip or not flip under what
> circumstances, is about as likely to succeed as telling people they
> can only create a gem if they use Emacs.  

Now if that's not an exaggeration ;-)...
You believe it's not likely to succeed, I don't really agree; that
doesn't take us anywhere :P But do you think we shouldn't even attempt
to get people to adopt good practices because we might fail? 
IMHO, if anything that's an argument *for trying harder* ;-)

> One way or another, some of this is bound to happen in real time, and
> interactively -- that is, whoever is installing a gem has to be
> notified if something is incompatible (which means the gem developer
> has to flag that somehow) or breaks a dependency.  This prospect comes

The version number is a nice way to flag it. If you don't want any
policies on the version number, you can ask them to have a 'rpa-version'
field in the metadata ;)

Anyway, what would be so bad about requiring (oh the horror! :) a
numbering scheme? Do people get attached to versions as they do to names?
Do you think a rpa-version field would be more likely to be accepted?
What if the gemspec *had to* have a rpa_version field?

> naturally to me, since I *want* to know what's being installed (there
> are some things, even on RAA, that I literally don't want on my
> system), so I may not be the best at putting my head inside the
> automatic dependency fetching scenario.

This is kind of orthogonal to the versioning issue, since it actually
happens at *load time*. 

Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access.  I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?
	-- Matt Welsh

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list