[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release
batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Mon May 31 09:26:46 EDT 2004
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 08:53:16AM -0400, Chad Fowler wrote:
> * some kind of versioning change (mauricio, eivind, or jim's idea(s))
> should go into 0.5 for feedback/testing
So far, 3 versioning schemes have been proposed,
for the details:
(1) format A: single version number, bumped on API extensions/changes.
pros: simple to explain, trivially implemented
cons: the number will increase *very* quickly; this scheme is stricter than
needed in the case of API extensions
Jim's 1.*.* is a variant of this (different notation, same basis), as
(2) format B: x.y.z, where x is bumped on API changes, y on API
extensions, z can be used for patchlevel/etc.
* it is essentially complete, unlike the two variants of A;
specifically, it is more expressive regarding API extensions
(consider v18 -- v19 in (A), 2.4.0 -- 2.5.0 in (B))
* the major version number doesn't increase nearly as quickly as in A
* this convention is fairly common
* more complex
a patch enforcing a versioning policy based on this format was posted in
(3) no scheme
As a somewhat separate issue, it was proposed that the API version number
be specified separately from the "main" version number; this way upstream
developers can use any scheme they want, and the API versioning policy
is only used internally by Rubygems.
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
Dijkstra probably hates me.
-- Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c
More information about the Rubygems-developers