[Rubygems-developers] PATCH: respect requirements of gems
batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 23 08:47:06 EDT 2004
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 07:33:26AM -0400, Chad Fowler wrote:
> >We fully agree on this; I just see the API as a part of the dependency.
> I do too. And, I think everyone who knows anything about programming
> would too. But, I don't think we have to enforce everything in code,
> in the same way that I don't think we have to check "type" for method
> parameters, or make everyone follow the same naming conventions with
> code. I believe the inclusion of Jim's additional 1.*.* kind of thing
> will give us the functionality we need to *recommend* a sensible
What's wrong about requiring a specific internal version numbering
scheme? I mean, the gemspec already requires rubygems_version, name,
platform, date, summary, require_paths, version; what's so wrong about
adding api_version to the list? Keep in mind that people would still be
free to use whatever scheme they like for the 'main' version number.
> convention for version numbering of gems. And, the community in actual
> practice will adhere to it. There may be a bump or two occasionally,
> just like occasionally someone changes an API without warning everyone
> and breaks code or makes a change in CVS that has unintended
> consequences. It's then caught and fixed. We can't write code to
> guard against every eventuality. We can write enough code and give
> users a framework so that it's *possible* to do the right thing, but
> I'm very much against trying to enforce policy like this via code. I
> believe Jim's idea is what is needed to move us in the right direction
> w.r.t versioning.
Actually, Jim's idea applied to the version number imposes far more on
the lib. devel than the internal API versioning: if gemmakers start
using 1.* that'd mean that libs. are expected to change their major
version num. on API change. The code I sent requires this for the
_internal_ version number, so the 'main' one can be set to whatever the
> My feeling is that this isn't nearly as big a deal as it's being made
> out to be.
What are the main pending issues in your opinion then? (not a rhetorical
question, I really want to know).
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
"You, sir, are nothing but a pathetically lame salesdroid!
I fart in your general direction!"
-- Randseed on #Linux
More information about the Rubygems-developers