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

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 1 23:39:30 EST 2004

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:09:00PM -0600, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> Mauricio Fernández wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:33:42AM -0800, David A. Black wrote:
> > > < 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* ;-)
> I think most developer's would agree that a standard version numbering
> method would be desirable (even if you couldn't get them to agree what the
> method should be).
> Just like naming conventions ("read_http_stream" vs. readHttpStream), it
> helps when developers follow the community's defacto standard, but its not
> required. Couldn't we do the same here -- if you follow the "standard"
> versioning scheme, your stuff will play better with RubyGems, but its not
> required that you do so.

Of course devels. won't (and couldn't anyway) be forced to follow these
rules, but rubygems could issue a strong recommendation -- I don't think
trying to drive adoption of a good practice can be bad.

Regarding the practical measures, in another msg I proposed that
* at least equal importance be attached to the versioning policy as to other
  technicalities in rubygems' documentation (I'd put it *before*
  'Creating the Gem Specification' in the 'RubyGems Developer Documentation
* the rubygems team make sure that the versioning policy is explained in the
  2nd edition of the Pickaxe (this makes sense since rubygems will
  change for sure, but the versioning policy ought to remain stable).
* in general, that the versioning policy be considered a fundamental part of
  rubygems and that all needed measures be adopted to ensure that no 'gem 
  packager' will break the system unintentionally. (edited)

what do you think about them?

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

Sic transit discus mundi
	-- From the System Administrator's Guide, by Lars Wirzenius

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list