[Rubygems-developers] Version number format
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Wed Mar 31 08:12:27 EST 2004
On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, 12:51:28 AM, David wrote:
> Hi --
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> It seems to me that if you want to "release" a snapshot gem, you
>> should put some effort into proper versioning, and release an actual
>> version, not a snapshot. So you release version 0.3.0 as "stable",
>> and release "0.3.7" or something as an "experimental" release, because
>> it has significant enough features you want to get out there, but
>> without giving people the idea that you've thoroughly tested it.
> All of this takes us, I think, into the realm of what people should do
> with gems functionality, rather than what gems functionality should
> be. And I think that's good, but I also think it means it's not our
> domain. I'd rather see gems be neutral as to things like how people
> choose to number things (odd, even, etc.) and let users and usage be
> flexible at that level.
True. I didn't mean that "0.3.0" is by nature stable and "0.3.7" is
by nature experimental; they were just examples of what a user might
do. It's the metadata that distinguishes them.
I just don't see the point of "0.3.0.20040329": all the effort to
release something that's so temporal. But of course rubygems should
support it. And the metadata would allow you to distinguish, so that
you don't accidentally install the dated one because it has a "higher"
version number than "0.3.0". You'd need
gem -i whatever --experimental
More information about the Rubygems-developers